USA TODAY
WASHINGTON, DC — Americans are rightly grateful for the men and women who protect them by becoming police officers, firefighters or members of the armed services. But with governments at all levels facing severe budget shortfalls, it is time for a frank conversation about how that gratitude should be exhibited.
Proclamations of appreciation are certainly in order, and higher pay might be warranted in some cases. But all too often, gratitude has taken the form of benefits that are more generous than those of other public-sector workers, wildly out of line with what private-sector workers get and squarely at odds with the public interest.
Topping the list of excesses are plans so indulgent that they allow people to retire and collect pensions after 20 years of service, regardless of age. That means they can start collecting something in the range of half of their final pay as soon as their late 30s or early 40s, sometimes with cost-of-living increases. They can stay longer for a bigger percentage, or take another job and “double dip.” In some cases, they can game the system by piling up overtime in their final years, raising their benefits. Access to heavily subsidized health care is also often part of the deal.
This largesse drives experienced people out of service while draining resources needed to pay less qualified replacements.
Despite such absurdities, benefits for uniformed personnel tend to be the most unassailable in tight budgetary times. In Wisconsin, for example, Gov. Scott Walker exempted police and firefighters from deep cuts, and retained collective bargaining rights for their unions while terminating those representing teachers and other public employees. (Perhaps not coincidentally, some of the public safety workers’ unions had backed Walker’s campaign for governor.)
This isn’t the case everywhere. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie has begun sparring with police and firefighter unions, after a year of focusing his budget-cutting attention almost exclusively on teachers. And Ohio Gov. John Kasich has his sights set on all unions, as well. But in most states and localities, putting future taxpayers on the hook for unaffordable benefits is the political path of least resistance.
In Washington, D.C., members of the military were exempted from federal pension changes in 1986. They can start collecting after 20 years, no matter their age. More eye-catching is the retiree health plan, which costs just $450 a year for family coverage. In the private sector, the average family contributes just under $4,000 toward an employer-sponsored plan, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Private-sector retirees rarely get any health care coverage.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ calls for quite modest increases to the health plan, known as TriCare, are meeting stiff resistance while Congress is eying steep cuts in core responsibilities of government.
Backers of these generous benefits argue that certain people deserve more because they put their lives on the line. That is true, up to a point.
Serving as a police officer is risky, but not as risky as one might think. Over the past three years, an average of 147 officers have been killed in the line of duty nationwide. That’s 0.02% of sworn officers. The family of each receives a $318,000 federal death benefit, which focuses generosity where it belongs instead of spreading largesse to many who face little danger.
As for military personnel, shouldn’t veterans who do multiple tours in combat zones be treated more generously than those who don’t come within thousands of miles of a battlefield?
Unless hard questions such as these are addressed soon, the gratitude Americans feel toward those in uniform is guaranteed to be replaced by resentment.
Copyright 2011 Gannett Company, Inc.