The auto contribution isn't the same as an automatic user contribution though. If they made 3% automatic unless someone opts out, then they'd be getting the 7% (3% of their own, a 3% match, and the 1% auto contribution). Making the lazy choice the responsible choice may just help more people make a bettre decision, even if that better decision is based on inertia.
Of course. If they were serious about ensuring their personnel got the most from their retirement plan they would have made a 5% minimum contribution requirement for service members with immediate vesting.
Don't be fooled and think they didn't know how little junior service members actually contribute to TSP when they first start out when they switched to this program.
DOD was already allowed to match TSP funds if they wanted to for select circumstances (6yr commitments I think) but they didn't why would they want to contribute more than the bare minimum now.
On the civilian side, the government GS system switched from CSRS to FERS in the 80s and got TSP and matching funds in return for a reduced pension % based on high-3 in order to force GS employees to contribute to social security, stating that social security would be part of their GS retirement package now.
FERS employees now see as little as 1/3 of the retirement annuity compared to their CSRS counterparts, a TSP account that got evicerated when the markets crashed and social security that doesn't have enough money to maintain full benefits in the future. In virtually every case, the Old CSRS system was a better deal GS workers, time will show that trading 10%+ base pay in retirement annuity for a 5% matching fund wasn't a winning choice for service member- and the bean counters know it now.