Recently, the assistant director of Government Affairs, Julie Rudowski, joined AUSA’s partners in The Military Coalition to meet with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other top Democratic members of Congress to discuss legislative goals.The overall theme of the meeting was veteran’s issues such as unemployment and access to health care.Military Coalition representatives also wanted to discuss the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee on the Deficit (aka the Supercommittee), what they may be planning and how it will affect the military community as they try to cut $1.2 trillion over the next decade.Pelosi noted that Congress had worked to ensure that if the Supercommittee failed to reach an agreement and sequestration did take effect, that virtually all VA health care and other programs would be exempt.While we were very pleased to hear this, Military Coalition co-chair Steve Strobridge pointed out that Congress had not extended the same protection to military health care programs. He urged the leadership to be wary of proposals that could affect future service members.Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., the newest recipient of The Military Coalition’s highest award, said that during his recent trip to Afghanistan, all he heard from service members is: "Why are you trying to cut my retirement?"This is clearly an issue of great concern to military personnel and their families.Several members of the Democratic leadership said that unless they were allowed to raise revenue, then "everything is on the table."Other topics raised were improvements to benefits such as the Survivor Benefit Plan/Dependency and Indemnity Compensation offset, the looming payment cuts to physicians who treat Medicare/TRICARE patients and issues that face female members of the military.Army chief concerned about budget cuts. The Army’s top soldier discussed the current budget crunch during this year’s Annual Meeting held recently in Washington.While accepting the estimated $450 billion cut in defense funding expected in the next decade, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said his biggest concern is the potential of further cuts to the military budget if the congressional Supercommittee is unable to find a way to cut $1.2 trillion from the national debt over 10 years."That would be devastating to the joint force, and particularly the Army, threatening the all volunteer force and ‘hollowing out’ the military," Odierno warned.Odierno said at a press conference that the Army will probably have to cut personnel end strength below the 520,000 goal it had set before the deficit reduction act, but he did not know how low it would go.Later he said, "Cutting too fast risks destroying the force and the trust between the soldiers and their leaders, which is the foundation of everything we do."The chief urged the nation’s leaders to remember the lessons of history, when in periods of fiscal austerity and peace the Army was cut so deeply it was unprepared for the next conflict.He stressed the need to maintain a flexible, versatile Army as part of the joint force.Odierno reiterated his position at a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee. He told panel members that deeper cuts to the defense budget would result in a further reduction than the already announced reduction of 27,000 troops."We’re going to have to significantly reduce the Army" to meet the $465 billion reduction, he said.Odierno also told key lawmakers that rebuilding military forces after a decade of war was a priority. He stressed that over the next several years, the war funding account — known as the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, or OCO, would play a critical role in helping the military repair and replace weapons and equipment worn down by years of high use.The fund declined from more than $157 billion in fiscal 2011 to a request of about $118 billion for fiscal 2012, which both appropriations panels have supported so far this year."I cannot overstate how critical it is in ensuring our soldiers have what they need while serving in harm’s way," Odierno said, "as well as the vital role OCO funding plays in resetting our formations and equipment, a key aspect of our current and future readiness. Failing to sufficiently reset now would certainly incur a higher future cost, potentially in the lives of our young men and women fighting for our country."Military retirement overhaul topic at Hill hearing. Representatives from The Military Coalition (TMC) offered testimony before the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee on recent proposals to overhaul military retirement.TMC co-chair Steve Strobridge told lawmakers that the "primary purpose of the military retirement package is to induce top quality people to serve multiple decades under conditions few Americans are willing to endure for even one term."After a decade of war in which career service members deployed time after time after time with ever-increasing odds of coming home a changed person, we found it shockingly insensitive that some now seek to curtail their retirement package to, quote: 'Make it more like civilian workers.’"Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., agreed. He said a proposal released earlier this year by the Defense Business Board was a "radical solution that would result in a significant reduction of retired benefits for all service members."Wilson suggested the plan "injected considerable uncertainty into the force, to include troops fighting in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The proposal created an immediate morale firestorm as service members feared that senior members within the Department of Defense and the military departments were seriously considering its implementation."We were pleased when a witness testifying on behalf of the Defense Department said that while "the military retirement system appears expensive, it is neither unaffordable nor spiraling out of control, as some would contend."Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, principal deputy under secretary of defense for readiness and personnel, added that any change or any system must ensure that the Department is able to recruit and retain the all-volunteer force and not damage the troops’ faith.One of the recurring reasons we hear with regards to changing the current retirement system is the fact that only 17 percent of the force actually completes a full 20 years of service in order qualify for retirement.Many, including the subcommittee’s ranking member, Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., ask if it is fair that a person who may have been deployed once and stays to retirement is eligible for a lifetime benefit while an individual who may have multiple deployments in a combat theater walks away with nothing.Strobridge replied, "When we acknowledge that the military service conditions are unique and vastly different from civilian conditions, the fact that we can only get 17 percent of enlisted people to stay for the current system to me speaks for itself about the arduousness of the career and the few people who are willing to endure that for a long time."To then turn around and say: ‘But we need to pay more to people who leave,’ to me any time you have a vesting system it by definition detracts from a career incentive. It can't do anything else. And in bad budget times, it leaves the government bidding against itself for their services, which only drives up costs."So to me if you want to talk fairness, the first thing we have to do is be fair to the people who suffer and sacrifice the longest, and that's the career person. And the last thing we should be doing is cutting their package to fund a better package for people who leave."