Senators seek to slice flag officers’ pensions
Apparently, in 2007, the Democrat Congress increased general officers’ pensions in order to entice them into staying in the service. The change hiked some pensions by 63%. Apparently, some unnamed dude in USAToday‘s article was scraping by on a mere $272,892 per year. So the Senate is moving to change that;
“Cutting the special pension enhancement is a no-brainer,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a non-partisan government watchdog. “This dubious provision was enacted at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a means of retaining senior flag officers; however, there is little evidence that it realized its intended effect. It should be revoked as soon as possible.”
Well, not only that, if they appeared in front of Congress and testified in favor of personnel cuts to defense spending, they should give up 10% of their annual pension for each time they told Congress that. It should also affect the pensions of any Sergeant Major who does that, too.
I’m pretty sure that general officers don’t need an incentive to stay in service longer, in fact, in many cases they need a disincentive.
The committee directed the Pentagon, at the request of Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., to study the effectiveness of the bolstered pensions in keeping senior officers in the military. This year, she questioned the need for the larger pension payments during a hearing about military compensation and the need to rein in costs.
The change was tucked into the massive National Defense Authorization Act, which the committee approved on a 25-1 vote late last month. The full senate will vote on the bill this year.
Yeah, I’m sure a Pentagon study will recommend a pension cut. While they’re at it, the Senate ought to investigate their own pension system. Not holding my breath for either.
Thanks to Chock Block for the link.
Category: Big Army
“in fact, in many cases they need a disincentive.” I like it. every year after 20, they lose a percentage of their expected pension. Double the reduction if assigned to the Pentagon.
Um, 2/17 Air Cav . . . officers don’t generally make O6 until they have more than 20 years of service. And in most instances, they don’t have that much opportunity to choose their next duty station. So while you might find your recommendations personally satisfying, they’re also not workable. Period. The basic problem here is that Federal law limits actual salaries received by O6s and above. However, military retirement pensions are calculated based on DFAS pay table amounts. Some of those pay tables show higher amounts for base pay than certain individuals actually ever received while serving. Here are the details. Specifically, actual salary for O6s is limited by law to the max pay of Level V of the Executive Schedule, while GO/FO actual salaries are limited to Level II of the executive schedule. O6s are unaffected by this restriction, as O6 base pay as set by DoD is below the limit for all O6s. Ditto O7s and O8s. However, for O9s with 30 or more years of service and all O10s, their specified base pay is actually higher than Level II of the Executive Schedule. For senior O9s and all O10s, the statutory limit comes into effect; their actual pay received is thus less than is specified by DFAS pay tables. However, retired pay is calculated based on the DFAS pay table amount – not on actual pay. Thus for O9s and O10s their retired pay can actually exceed (by a considerable amount in some cases) their pay while on active duty. The simple fix is for Congress to tell DoD to do precisely what OPM has already done for Federal civilians (some civilian grades also hit the statutory caps with locality pay; I think it’s only GS-15 and SES grades, but I haven’t checked). For those civilian pay grades, above a certain “step” (longevity), there are no longevity pay raises; pay is capped at the statutory limit, and that is reflected in Federal civilian pay tables for those grades. If DFAS were to do the same for O9s with 30 or more years of service and for… Read more »
What will end up happening, in typical Washington fashion, is that everyone EXCEPT GOs will get a pension cut.
I am curious though – over the last few years how many GOs have been busted for various things (lying, cheating and tolerating those who do)and have been allowed to retain their retirement benefits? It seems like quite a few. Take away their bennies and the savings there could probably buy someone a new ship or F35.
Would be nice if Congress cut their own pay, pensions, and benefits first. Just how much money would be saved there as well.
They’re too good for Leadership By Example, just ask ’em.
The effect would be miniscule, Island. And Congressional pensions aren’t as generous as you might think.
Members of Congress are under two different retirement systems, depending on when they began service as a Member. As of 1 October 2012, there were only 527 persons drawing a Federal pension based fully or in part on service in Congress.
Of those, 312 were drawing a pension under the “old system” (closed to new entrants since 1984). This group had an average pension of a bit under $71,500. The remaining group of 215 (under the “new system”, which is significantly less generous) had an average pension of a bit over $40,500.
Neither of the above includes Social Security.
Source: http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C*PLC8%22%40%20%20
Frankly, Congressional pensions kinda suck financially in comparison to military pensions when level of responsibility is taken into account. An O6 retiring in 2012 with 25 years of service in 2012 would have had a pension of somewhere around $74,500.
Like GOs/FOs, most in Congress aren’t there for the money. My assessment is that, by and large, they’re power junkies who like what they’re doing.
Hondo…I agree. Congressional pensions, while a focal point to those who they may screw over are always going to be suspect. It is the programs of welfare, SNAP, housing, aid to illegals, tax breaks to illegals and those programs which need SERIOUS overhaul. I mean cut to the bone overhauled. Before the Congress or White House or any agency looks to the military to save money, they need first to take away from the bloated, driving this nation into economic default, social support programs. Those are what are killing us, not military retirees’ pay, AD pay, Tricare or any of those. The Word says, “if a man is not willing to work, let him not eat”. The number of able bodied folks on social programs who could be working, paying taxes and perhaps even, developing a sense of integrity and self accomplishment is astronomical compared the the number who truly need help.
I know our system of government and support it. But if I could change one thing, it would be, if a person is on public assistance, they cannot vote. If voting means a great deal to them, then go to work, pay your taxes and stand proud in the voting booth. I know that is anathema to the Democrats and many Republicans and perhaps some here. Every person votes based on their own interests and hopefully what they believe is the best for our nation, even if it falls outside their own agenda. But to allow people to vote for their own income when giving nothing back is in my mind wrong. Just my one humble opinion.
Workfare. With teeth in it. No work, no eat unless you have a for real no-shit disability. In which case you can answer Gubmint phones. Not like you’ll do any worse than what they have now….
I agree no voting if you are on public assistance. Its only logical for those on the dole to vote for more handouts.
I agree we need to encourage GOFOs to leave – we have more Admirals now than we ever did during WW2!!!!!
I have no doubt that’s true, and I wonder what today’s ratio of GO’s to enlisted is today versus in WWII?