…here it comes
We got a whisper of this yesterday, but Greg sends us a link to The Army Times which says that the President has authorized the Military Retirement and Compensation Modernization Commission to begin making recommendations him for an overhaul for military pay and benefits compensation;
“The Commission’s recommendations for change must grandfather any currently serving members and current retirees in the current military retirement systems, but may allow current service members and current retirees the choice to change to your proposed retirement system,” the letter said.
Ok, so those of us who “got mine” feel better that they say they won’t change the current system? Well, read this;
But the commission likely will have to recommend shrinking the current package to some degree.
Well, of course, because they can’t balance the budget on the backs of veterans with recommendations that won’t be used for another 20 years or so.
The intent here is clearly to destroy retention and readiness. How will a new retirement system improve national security, along with all of the other new bullshit coming out of this White House and pack of spastic colons? Are they planning to do the same for the retirement system in Congress – because that program needs some serious reform, too. Same with the retirement system for Presidents.
Category: Military issues
and they still refuse to even look at all the fraud in welfare….
The liberals know that they could never hope to evicerate the military directly, that they’d have to do it piecemeal, bit by bit, and taking away any incentive to make the military a career is a helluva place to start.
Then you have a military of “one and done” types with almost none above E-5/O-3. So much easier to control them that way, dontcha know.
And they still expect us to fight and die in syria with fewer incentives…
Bless
Our
House
It’s
Christmas
Almost
This really pisses me off. There are a hundred reasons why. Not the least of which is that our representatives in congress do not ever lead by example as they make decisions that affect our comrades. Bastards.
Lefties believe they can do it with a few “supermen” and technology, no need for large scale forces, which they will never be able to gather the political will to use anyway.
And even if they can’t win that way, taking thousands of young people and teaching them to take responsibility for their own actions, avoid making excuses, work to achieve something and place anything above oneself is so contrary to their worldview that they have to destroy any institution which does that.
When “the one” was elected I knew this day was coming. He had to wait until his re-election was secure to take any real action, but now there isn’t any reason for him to hold back.
Anyway-I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t make long-term plans based on my military retirement, but if they took it all away tomorrow, I’d still have gotten more worth from my time in service than I can measure monetarily. I’m not in favor of the cuts to benefits, but the money is the least of my rewards for my service.
John, the retirement did change for civil servants in 1987. Congress gets the same plan as a 20 year employee of the US Park Rangers if they are not vested.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension)
The President gets a pension because Congress set one up for Presidents after Truman had to sell his memoirs to keep paying his staff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act
@2, It’s been 30 years since we examined and changed the DoD retirement system. I think it is time to seriously look at options.
@1, This is not about welfare, foreign aid, or public television, or Obamacare. This is about an aging population and a debt bomb tied to Social Security and Medicare and interest rates on debt that MUST rise. It’s about revenues that dropped off the cliff when the economy tanked and will not come back for years because that’s how tall the cliff was, not because this President or that Congress did or did not do something. Benefits MUST be cut and the tax code Must change (home mortgage deduction), if we are to stabilize and avert a true government meltdown. Read Simpson-Bowles. The solution is there, but no one wants do ANYTHING because the medicine tastes bad for Democratic AND Republican constituents. So it’s easier to stick our heads in the sand and say that the “other guy” is not doing his part. Now WE are being asked to sacrifice. Isn’t that what we signed up for?
No, we did not sign up to sacrifice retirements built on the sacrifices of body and soul over a period of 20-30 years.
Our Retirees did their time, they made their sacrifices already and to take away from them now is going to send a chilling message to any soldier considering remaining in for a career, and that message is we do not give a shit about you so get the fuck out now.
Yes, it has everything to do with all those other things you mentioned, to include welfare.
well, for anyone who wonders why gun folks get so perturbed over new gun laws – this is a great example of the kind of “death of a thousand” cuts the anti-gunners and anti-military use. Face it, there are tens of MILLIONS of welfare recipients of all flavors, and comparatively fewer retired military – and especially when we can’t even ask said ‘voters’ for a freakin’ ID – who do you think the politicians are going to pander to?
While I must admit I viewed my retirement as too far in the future to be worth worrying about at the time, by the time I was finishing my second enlistment it was far higher on my priority list than it was for the first four years. I would guess that where we will see the most impact is in the mid-term folks who are on the fence about finishing the whole 20 (or whatever is decreed in DC Lalaland.) Junior enlisted probably won’t care, and senior 15+ folks will probably figure to stay regardless – but we are goig to lose a solid cadre of combat-ready junior leaders who will get out.
Any shit they pull will have to be on enlistees who join after a certain date. They can’t go back and change benefits for those who already are drawing them.
When I was a Company 1st Sgt I had a long conversation with the parents on one of our recruits during family night. We got to talking about pensions and they were absolutely appalled on how LITTLE the retirement pay was for Sr Enlisted.
Glad I didn’t stay in until retirement….what’s the point?
Well, so much for retiring before I’m 90.
Why would anyone who has been mindful and observant of this regime (time was an admin would never be called a regime) expect anything else? And as for the emperor, that SOB became a millionaire after he became president. Funny how that works. But, what the hell, he gets paid to make the bIG decisions. Too bad that thus far they have been all wrong for our military and our nation.
Just an Old Dog: Don’t be so sure. Many thought the same thing about post-retirement military medical care before TRICARE was instituted.
Ask someone who retired from the military in the 1960s/1970s/1980s how that worked out.
Maybe it’s high time welfare was scaled back to the level it occupied before LBJ started it in 1965.
Oh, and Medicare is a big deal with me. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a doctor of any kind who will take a Medicare patient? What is the use of having that kind of coverage when there is no one to go to? If I do not have VAHCC, I have nothing.
I agree, welfare is the 8000lb gorilla in the room, and no one in D.C. wants to even look in that direction, much less address the problem.
#6 68W58,
I feel you there. While a few short years ago I looked forward to “being all that I can be” for the foreseeable future and relying on the Army and my retirement to see me through, I’ve recently started thinking more about “me”. As a lowly SSG with not quite 12 years in service but 6.5 years in grade, I wouldn’t be surprised if I get QSP’ed in the next year or two. While not stagnant by most standards (in fact it could be argued that I’ve had an admirable career so far), I’ll be the “perfect” candidate for personnel cuts if I don’t make the E-7 list next year, as I won’t be eligible for early retirement and will have been passed over five times for SFC.
I’m in the process of wrapping up my senior year of college now, with plans to apply for a graduate program by the end of next year. Besides the formal education I too have gotten much more out of this career than just the hopes of collecting retirement pay. The Army has taken me places (literally and figuratively) I never thought I’d go. When I do hang up the boots, whether voluntarily in eight years (or sooner, if offered a chance at early retirement) or involuntarily in the next few years, I want to make sure that I’ve gotten as much out of the Army as they’ve gotten out of me. This is something I encourage my Soldiers to do as well–use every last benefit you can while you have them. As the halt on TA proved, they are subject to cuts at any time.
@1 More welfare fraud has been found and prosecuted than under any other President to date. Unfortunately they need a lot more prosecutors and stiffer penalties still even though under our current President they were doubled from the last.
Either veterans and other groups bend over and take it, or we fight this attempt to break the promise made to generations of heroes. We gave them the best years of our lives and they want to give us an IOU.
Pundits have the gall to say that pensions are “ripe for reform” and that 20 years is “too soon” to retire.
Either we push back or we get stamped down.
Imagine that! Reducing retirement… gee, I wonder if it’s September, and there’s no budget or CR yet?
Wait for Dems and some spastic GOP to suddenly restore the money (which we don’t have) just after the House vote.
Any mention of cutting welfare benefits is automatically shouted down, as we need to “take care of those in need”, and the ever-present “children”. They just keep piling more benefits towards those that contribute absolutely nothing to society, while President Obama continually chastises those that don’t pay their “fair share”. Thirds and fourth generation welfare recipients cranking out more and more children. Yeah, we have our priorities right.
fm2176-You and I are in complete agreement. The Army has allowed me to live a life I can be proud of, meet people who will be my friends for life and made me a better person.
Good luck with your situation, it sounds like you will be fine either way.
UpNorth: have to disagree. The two biggest categories of Federal expenditures are now (a) Social Security and (b) combined Medicare/Medicaid/other Federal medical assistance programs.
Together, these two categories of Federal expenditures account for around $0.45 out of each Federal dollar spent. Both categories have historically grown without check. Left unchanged, both programs (Social Security, Medicare) are also projected to go broke reasonably soon – and we’re doing nothing to fix the underlying structural problems.
68W58,
Knowing that no matter where I am in the US (with a very few exceptions) there’s someone I can call–or, more realistically in this day and age, message through FB–if I’m stranded or simply in need of some company puts my mind at ease. I also had some of the best civilian neighbors imaginable when I was recruiting and, hence, found my future home.
One thing that pisses me off is watching veterans play the “woe is me” card–blaming the military for their sorrows. Some vets are legitimately screwed over by their leadership, medical officers, or others involved in the bureaucracy of administrative or medical separations. Others (like me only a few short years ago) just assume they’ll be afforded the opportunity to continue serving and will get steady promotions. Between the education benefits and the intangible benefits such as discipline, learning to work as part of a diverse team, and building a strong foundation of management and leadership experience, there is no reason why we shouldn’t leave the military better off than we were when we joined. Those of us fortunate enough to make it without significant wounds or injuries are only rarely justified when complaining about getting “screwed”.
I want to retire in eight years, and I’d love to receive 50% of my high-3 in pay (or 40% if I take the CSB in a few years). If I get involuntary separation orders next year, however, I’ll figure out a way to make it, without biting the hand that once fed me.
The dems tried the same thing during the Carter administration. Once they gutted the services they talked of tinkering with retirement. A lot of talk but no action. It sure stirred up the troops and most especially the officer corps. Reagan put a stop to it as he built the military up to ruin the Sovs. This is typical of the Dems, lots of support of the non producers while screwing the those who produce.
nothing is too good for our service people, but we have to give them something.
@25; Actually, they did change the retirement system under Carter, from “final pay” to “high three.” This change in how to compute the retirement payment resulted in a smaller check to the retiree–although it was grandfathered. Then they came up with REDUX. The idea was that too many people were getting out at 20 years. So they changed it from 50% at 20 years to 40% at 20 years, with an increase after that of 3.5% per year of service, up until 75% at 30 years of service. They also decreased the cost of living raises until you hit age 60 or so. The problem with REDUX was that, about the time service members hit 12 years in service, they looked at the value of their retirement, decided it wasn’t worth it, and started to bolt. So Congress had to change it back to the older system, 50% at 20 with high three–with a caveat that, at ten years in service you had to choose REDUX or that system, and if you chose REDUX, they’d give you a huge check–but not enough to make up what you’d lose by choosing the REDUX retirement over high three. The big problem with REDUX was that, because of both officer and enlisted retention control points (at least in the Army), the only way you could get to 75% of base pay, and 30 years of service, was if you were an E-9, or an O-6 or above. So you could have what would have been, by any sort of definition, a fully successful career, and still receive a reduced retirement because you’d hit a mandatory grade/years of service point short of 30 years. Then, a few years ago, they changed the system again (NOT grandfathered this time—effective for anyone who retired after the law was signed) so that you could continue to accrue 2.5% per year towards retirement, up to 100% at 40 years of service. A good deal for sergeants major, or for officers who had several years of enlisted service before commissioning–and a great deal for flag officers, who have a… Read more »