VSOs and Congress try to retract veterans’ COLA cut

| December 27, 2013

Fox News reports that before the ink is dry on the President’s signature on the budget bill he signed into law yesterday, Congress is stepping back from their legislation in regards to the cuts to the cost of living cuts to veterans’ pensions.

On Monday, Rep. Julia Brownley, D-Calif., introduced a bill that would repeal the provision that curtails annual cost of living increases in benefits that go to military retirees under age 62.

“As a member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I believe our service members, veterans, and their families must receive the benefits they have earned and deserve,” Brownley said in a statement. “These benefits are owed to them without equivocation. That is why I have introduced legislation to repeal the military retiree COLA reduction.”

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, introduced a similar bill on Monday, according to The Hill. It was unclear whether either proposal included provisions to offset the costs of eliminating the cuts.

Several Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., have proposed closing a tax loophole that has allowed illegal immigrants to claim fraudulent cash payments in order to replace the cuts.

According to Fox’ math, an E-7 who retires at the age of 42 would lose $72,000 in income over his lifetime from the reduction in COLA. I’d say that’s significant. The Veterans’ Services Organizations have lined up against the bill;

“Keep your promise” was the theme of a lobbying effort by the Military Officers Association of America.

American Legion National Commander Daniel M. Dellinger said the group was “horrified” that the Senate could pass a bill “so unfair to those Americans who have served honorably in uniform.”

The Veterans of Foreign Wars predicted the change would prompt an exodus of those at midcareer once the U.S. economy rebounds, and that it will hurt efforts to recruit new people into the all-volunteer force.

Yeah, well, I’m not sure that this administration is committed to the all-volunteer force given the way that they relish the thought of screwing veterans and the troops who are still serving. I’m convinced that their underlying goal is to resurrect conscription.

Category: Big Army, Congress sucks, Veterans Issues

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

‘I’m convinced that their underlying goal is to resurrect conscription.’

You’re not alone in that line of thought.


And it’s likely they’d want the draft not in the interest of “fairness” (which is a BS argument) but more likely than not they admit to themselves that a draftee force is NOT as high-quality as an all-volunteer force (McNamara’s 100K, anyone?) and it’s more an evisceration of the military they want, and what they’d get.


How about they just do right by us and not try to unscrew their mistake? It irritates me when they act high and mighty, like “look at us, we are trying to help”.


I think it’s funnier than hell that we (not just veterans, we Americans) constantly look to the politicians to fix situations THEY THEMSELVES CREATED.



@4… Really. We’d all be better off if they’d just sit in the chambers and look important. And leave us alone.


The Fox News article also falsely states that the cuts will not apply to those already retired or on active duty, only future recruits.

Common Sense

So where were all these Congressmen during the original vote? Did they vote for it? Did they even read it?


@7–Che-Pelosi voted to cut them. I’ve heard nothing from her, despite asking how she can on one hand claim to be a big supporter of the troops and on the other stab them in the back like this.

Maybe she just wilted because her staffers forgot to water her this week. Meh.

Club Manager

Can you say “shit storm” because that is what those who voted to reduce the COLA have faced. In addition to those in the House voting for the Act, those in the Senate who did not vote for the Sessions Amendment to remove the COLA reduction from the Act have to explain that vote. KEEP THE PRESSURE ON THEM IN THIS ELECTION YEAR.

B Woodman

I’m not sure how well a resurrection of the draft would go down. Correct me if I’m wrong (please, I probably am), but wasn’t there a court case where the draft was abolished because it was considered a form of involuntary servatude, i.e., slavery??
If this is true (big IF), I wouldn’t be surprised to find that it was hippie leftist libturds who brought the case to begin with, to avoid serving in the military. And I would be as equally not surprised to find those same grown older (not the same as “adult”) hippie scum who would want to reinstate the draft.


My 83 year old Mother got a raise from SSI she has dementia the government decided to give her Ten cents, 10/100, $0.10 more a month!
My Lord that’s One dollar and twenty cents, $1.20 more a year!
Ya know I don’t care what folks say about him, that Obama is a nice man.
Wave at the nice man people, see him smile that smile.
P/S, Mom says, “thanks, thanks a lot, that’s ten cents more and it’s not a lot, so thanks, thanks a lot.”
She always did like Earnest Tubb.


Draft? The Government will play hell drafting young kids today, tattooed, obese and pussyfied to the max expecting Mom and Dad to clean up and pick up after them and oh hell don’t even think about PT.


This is how I see it: the draft offered a large pool of warm bodies that could be sent anywhere in the world, including Korea. After Korea, some of the draftees became lifers, because they liked it, but recruiters weren’t required to offer the military as a career choice, so that was all pretty lowkey. Most men did their 6 and got out, and almost everyone who had been in made use of the GI Bill to get into college. Then along came Vietnam and things kicked up a notch, but the lifers were still mostly people who liked the military. It gave them some form of stability.

End the Vietnam war, and there is no longer a need for a draft. In fact, it represented so much social discord that it was abandoned and the US went to an all-volunteer force, which meant that DoD had to offer something besides food, clothing, shelter and medical/dental care, something that meant a real career to the applicants.

That’s been going for almost 40 years now, and while it should attract the cream of the crop, it all too frequently brings in idiots like Manning, and you know what that turns into.

So, one of the ways to reduce the ‘lifer’ population, reduce the pension benefit pool, and reduce the overhead for things like medical/dental, clothing, etc., is to revive the draft, require that women register for Selective Service, and make everyone put in 4 active and 2 reserve years, and play down the career aspects of it.

All this ‘discussion’ in WDC about how much it costs to maintain a standing military and keep career people motivated has more to do with overspending on other things than anything else. And in the end, yes, you can bet money and win that the military will be aimed at returning the Square One, required service, lousy pay and bennies, and fewer lifers vs. short-timers.



Even today, with the all volunteer military, only 7-12% (depending on what number you look at)of all new recruits will ever serve to 20+ years.

And that 7-12% are the people who will become the senior leaders…which you would still need in an military of conscripts.

So I don’t see how that is going to save $$$ on anything.


Neither do I, but my guess is that it’s how they’re thinking, and it is ONLY a guess.