Charles Norwood: “this government offered a comprehensive employment contract to our military retirees. As a former member of the armed…”

“this government offered a comprehensive employment contract to our military retirees. As a former member of the armed services, I was personally presented the package in the 1960s. I remember the sales pitch quite well, for the Army was very honest in pointing out the pros and cons of a military career. The negatives were, first, that you might get killed or maimed in the line of duty but if you survived, you would have to move your family from one side of the country to the other every couple of years, maybe even overseas, and you would be paid far less than you would in a similar skill civilian job in spite of having to deal with these hardships. The supposedly offsetting positives were that your out-of-pocket living expenses would be far less, since major expense items such as health care would be covered directly by the Army, both during your active duty years and in retirement. Retirement was available after 20 years of service at half of your last paycheck. Therefore, we were told we could afford to work and retire for far less than our jobs would command in the private sector or the Federal civilian workforce, for that matter, because of all of these great benefits. We would not need a big retirement check since we would have fully funded health care for life. We could live off a lot less since we would never face big health care bills.”