Evening star., 1961-09-02

The Armed Forces Pay Act,
effective June /. 1858.
changed the l00-year prece-
dent for computing retired
pay at the rate Of rs per cent
Of the then current basic pay
Of the grade in which retired.
This was done by freezing"
the basic pay to that effective
on the individuals date Of re-
tirement, if retired before
June /. 1858.
Absolutely no reason exists
for the selection of this arbi-
trary date. Thus officers and
men retired after May 81,
1853 will have their retired
pay computed from the new
and much higher rate.
Every living retired officer,
regardless Of how long ago he
entered the service, had every
right to expect the resulting
oscillation Of his pay when
ever the current basic pay
scale was increased. Chang
ing this traditional method is
a breach Of faith and was so
recognized by the House last
year. when it unanimously
approved corrective legisla-
ton.
Further, an informal poll
of the Senate Armed Services
Committee and of the Senate
as q whole. taken in l959-60,
showed rs per cent to favor
correction Of this gross injus-
tice; but the bill could not be
brought to vote on the Senate
floor due to the intransigence
Of Senator Stennis CMissis-
sippD backed by Chairman
Russell Georgia.. Stennis,
chairman Of the Armed Serv-
ices Pay Subcommittee, re-
fused to hold hearings until
the entire military retired
pay system had been re-
viewed. Thus a contract for
such a study was made with
a group Of professors at the
University of Michigan.
Their report was recently
published July 6, 1850. In
spite of the authors find
ings, that the time available
for their review was too
short to permit as extensive
a study as the complexity of
the subject would warrant;
and in spite of consequent
serious errors and omissions,
a few of which are brought
out below, Senator Russell
recently cited the report as a
further excuse for not hold
ing hearings by the Senate
Armed Services Committee.
OF the five areas Of the
retired pay system which the
Michigan study group was
directed to investigate, in
only one area did the group
make recommendation for
savings in retired pay costs,
namely. by freezing the basic
pay of the grade in which re-
tired thus continuing and
compounding the inequities
Of the 1858 act. In the four
other areas either no savings
are recommended or addi-
tional costs are entailed.
This constitutes the height
OF absurdity; because the re-
port points to the heavy in
creased retired pay for the
armed services from $3.5 mil
lion in 1900; to S63 million in
1910; to $685. million in 1860;
and a predicted $3.4 billion in
1888. Yet the savings recon-
mended in the study, to be
made only at the expense of
personnel retired prior to
June /, 1858. would be less
than $50 million for 1861,
and would average only $l3
million per year until all
such retirees are dead. Thus,
for all his intransigence. Sem
ator Stennis apparently has
purchased for Congress a
$174,000 report that doesn't
even dent the problem he
poses to his senatorial COL
leagues and the public. In
deed, the average annual
savings under actions recon-
mended. amount to less than
four-tenths of per cent
Of the predicted 1883 retire
ment costs, and are less than
three-hundredths of l per
cent of the current SAT bill
lion 1861 defense budget.
On the other hand, the
Michigan group report puts
it's finger properly (if also
obviously on the factors
which are the basic causes of
this large increase in mill
tary retired pay, namely %
the necessity of maintaining
a FAR greater peace time
military strength in the face
of communism; (2) from
this arises the necessity of
authorizing 20-year retire
ment to attract reserve Off
GERS: and 80 the necessity Of
earlier retirement from AZ to
So years Of age (as against
age 81 before World War II
to prevent stagnstion Of pro-