What my military pension means to me
The news this week is that the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission will release their report and recommend changes to the military 20-year retirement system, abolishing the old system for a 401k-type of program and will delay any pension benefits until the age of 60, or longer. Of course, it’s because the Commission doesn’t have any representatives on their little club who understand what a 20-year pension represents to enlisted retirees who aren’t flush with disposable cash.
I retired at the age of 38 along with my family. I went to college the month after I left the service. It was a fairly tough transition – I worked a full time job with a security company as a rent-a-cop on a construction site, I also worked as a work/study student in the campus VA office, all while carrying a full load of classes. The pension helped us meet our transition expanses until I graduated.
After college, I went into sales with an investment company, a totally foreign environment. While I struggled to learn the business and how to teach other people what they needed, the Army pension paid the bills. Eventually, I failed at that business because some people are too stupid to help, and I’m no salesman,
When I went to work for the National Archives, most of the people my age had been at the job longer, so I was behind my peers in pay, but living in the District of Columbia, my employer didn’t take that into consideration and I still had to pay rent and bills. My pension gave me parity with my peers in an expensive environment.
My pension was $999/month when I retired in 1994 – it wasn’t a lot, but it made up for those years that I wasn’t competing in the workforce. It has kept pace with inflation, and it’s half-again as much now. It’s still not a lot but now that I’m retired and I’ve made as much as I’m ever going to make, it still makes a difference.
This Commission is only looking at how they can save the Pentagon some money, they aren’t looking at how their decision will impact future soldiers and how they’re going to make their transition to civilian life more difficult with their cost-cutting.
They’re recommending a 401k-type retirement as if it is a new idea. It is not – military members have the Fed’s Thrift Savings Plan available with tax-deferred benefits. But service members don’t get the employer match benefit that civilian employees have, and the tax-deferred money isn’t available to retiring members until they’re 59 1/2 years old, unless they are disabled.
So, it doesn’t make military retirement as attractive to careerists as the current program does. And therein lies the problem – a professional force needs to retain it’s experienced warriors. Those experienced warriors aren’t going to stick around if the Pentagon’s bean counters are only looking for ways to save money regardless of how it affects the folks kicking doors and making widows.
Category: Military issues
The commission if also recommending building more day care centers on military installations. SGT Baby Momma needs somewhere to drop off her four childrens from various baby daddies.
I made this for the Stolen Valor page. I’ll leave it here too.
http://i.imgur.com/FeQiVew.jpg
Thanks Chip. That pic made me throw up. I don’t know who those gentlemen are or what orgs they are with, but it makes me want to yell, “Oh bullshit!”
While they are at it, they should look up FUBAR.
Not to mention the fact that folks in some military specialties are pretty banged up after 20 years of carrying a heavy load and need that retirement check to provide for them immediately after leaving the service. Shit, some guys probably don’t make it to 59 1/2.
They are counting on the fact that some won’t make it that long. Makes them even bigger asshats.
BINGO! We have a winner! Civvies do not understand the physical stress that some of us are put through. Back injuries, torn up knees and shoulders, broken bones, etc. are they physical price that many of us pay wearing the uniform. Some of those injuries may make it difficult to transition into a civilian job, so the money from retirement may be the difference for some between a roof over their heads and being homeless.
How many of us have seem youngsters going in at 18-20, serve 20+ years and come out looking older than their fathers? It’s almost like were pro football players with the hell we put our bodies through. I’m thankful everyday that I can get up, tie my shoes and walk with the number of surgeries I’ve had. For serving 20+ years, I think that it is the least that the military and the country can do for those of us that make it a career.
This dickweed is on your side.
“Four points:
1. We, as a group of service members, veterans, and their families, had more input into the findings of this commission than probably any in the history of the armed forces.
2. To put it bluntly, this commission wasn’t accomplished by a Pentagon minion who received tens of thousands of dollars to ensure a certain set of findings.
3. As soon as the report is released, please take the necessary time to review it and let others in your unit know that it is available. I suspect there will be specific parts of the MCRMC’s findings that are positives and some that are negatives for my family. We are all likely to have similar experiences.
4. Try to put their findings in context. The commission’s job was to look at what TOTAL package of pay and benefits is most likely to enable us to continue having an all-volunteer fighting force for the foreseeable future. Whether you or I like or dislike any particular pay or benefit change isn’t the point.”
“Are the MCRMC recommendations a perfect solution? No; but perfection isn’t attainable. The MCRMC’s recommendations may be the most reasonable offer we are likely to hear and one that I am hopeful imposes a certain amount of finality on the topic. We as a nation either are willing to provide the funds to sustain the All-Volunteer Force or we aren’t. If we aren’t, then a different discussion needs to take place and we better make sure our Selective Service System is ready to go.
Make no mistake about it; reforms are coming to the compensation package of our military force. What that package looks like depends in large part on what choice you make next. I think there are two primary choices: You can seriously consider this independent commission’s goals and provide feedback on their conclusions to your elected representatives, or you can do nothing and watch as DoD continues to “nickel and dime our people to death” for the foreseeable future.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-hilton/sweeping-military-pay-and_b_6547296.html
I can’t reiterate what Frosty says here.
Pull up and read the entire report.
While my gut tells me that this isn’t a good deal, as I believe it significantly devalues a full career to the benefit of those who leave between the 8 to 12 year mark, you can’t evaluate it unless you read all the parts.
What disappoints me (based on what I have read in reporting so far), is that the report didn’t use the opportunity to recommend significant changes to the personnel system which could have significantly influenced what we pay for defense.
The man power cost will always remain about 50% of the budget. The big ticket items and the research and development of the big ticket items are a huge problem. The extra F-35 engine that was not wanted or needed, the F-117 program, and the Comanche OH program. The rolling gun system, the force 21 initiatives. All of this is rich guys getting richer, and wondering how they can cut into more of the pie for their pockets. If we can dig into that 50% of the budget we can make more money for our toys. This is plain for people to see, but everyone would rather be blind to it.
You know…
If we’d honor our oaths and force the fedzilla back into the constraints demanded by the Constitution, there wouldn’t be any budget issues to contend with.
Actually, that’s probably one of the points of this plan. The military wants to encourage more SMs to get out at the midpoint of their career.
The vast majority of SMs leave after one tour. If you want to retain only the very best after 10 or so, then you encourage the mediocre to get out early.
80% of all attrition occurs prior to the 8 year point anyway. So….why pay folks to get out when they are already doing it?
The reason why the current system is out of what is due to demographics. When it was instituted the average person stayed for 25 years and had a life expectency of 67 years. Now, the average person stays to 21 years and lives to 80+. Remember, we are still paying for the retiree population of an Army of 800K (pre-Cold War drawdown).
The real problem with the current model is that the balance between time served on active duty and time spent on the retired rolls has come out of fiscal ballance.
Bottom line is that these are tools designed for a drawdown.
As these separation board lists are published you see a lot of junior and mid grade combat experienced officers and NCOs getting their involuntary separation papers at the 5-10 year mark. They get a one time separation pay (10% of base pay for each year of service) and that is it. Is that enough.
Why don’t they come out with a report showing what the legacy costs are for the govvies. I know damn well that needs to be reformed before we go after our military folks. You are full of BS they always go after the military because we are an easy target NO UNION.
You hit the nail on the head. Government employees are the real drain on the system. The benefit package for them is cutting into the DOD budget. Federal union dollars go to the Democrats. And the coffers are drying up with states governors reforming state pension plans. So here comes the money GRAB. Take from the military because they have no voice. That is the only reason I belong to a few veterans groups. This is where service members meet and have clout. So make sure and tell your leadership in these groups your opinion. You know, VFW, AL, DAV, VVA, Amvets , etc.
Out of curiosity, what government employees do you work with?
I am retired Army and a current GS. I work hard, put in more hours than I am paid for, and I am good at my job.
I work with both GS and military, and the slug to stud ratio is about the same on both sides.
I don’t think anyone is talking about the civilians on the lower levels that work hard.
I think this is more directed for the hundreds/thousands of civilians who don’t even “see” Soldiers most of their career.
I’ve dealt with a few higher level civilians who forget that their whole purpose for getting a paycheck is to SUPPORT Soldiers. They build their empire and do everything they can to protect it.
I agree that there are slugs and studs on both sides because I see them every day too.
As I said in my post I am retired and when I was active duty AF I had to deal with many low level lazy civilians. Slug to slug ratio means jackshit because a military person can be disciplined and eventually kicked but I have never seen a govvie fired for not doing their job. Example VA. My daughter is an Army Captain, my son is an Seargent First Class,and my daughter is a Senior Airmen, my son in law is a Petty offier, my husband is a defense contractor retired AF who come home with all the same comments. This is in Virginia, North Carolina, and California.
An even bigger consideration is we as a community are by and large not huge supporters of the current administration. Not much they can do to change it, so no real cost to their party by putting the screws to retirees. it won’t affect the voting dynamics much.
Were they to make cuts like this to welfare, and other such programs, there would be a cacophony of squeeling in the DNC headquarters and White House.
As a retiree (USAFR) I dont get a check until I’m 60 anyway. I wonder if that will eventually change too.
Also, before you start banging on the civvies not all of us are GS15’s or union members.
It doesn’t matter that you are not a GS15 or union member. It boils down to they will screw the military to save the govvies.
His point is valid. While not everyone does it, when the word “govvies” is tossed out in regards to government employees, most people are thinking GS-14/15, SESers or elected/appointed asshats.
I think you’re mistaken the term govvie is synonymous with any civil servant. His point is not valid due to the fact there are many douchebags who are not GS15 etc but can’t be fired but don’t produce. I saw it when I was active duty and I have three children serving who see the same crap. My point is whenever they talk about cutting and legacy costs they never mention the civilian workforce.
Not so. It happens all the time, more so in the past few years, and it will be more frequent in the next few..
When an organization with mixed military and GS is reduced, the military simply PCS. The GS workers go through a RIF, and many lose their jobs or are reduced
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with looking at modernizing the military retirement system. Right now it’s an “all or nothing” type of thing, you either stay for 20 and get the benefit or you get out with less than 20 and get diddly squat (other than what you’ve personally saved on your own.) Compare that with a lot of civilian jobs where you can take your vested benefits with you when you move to another job.
The question would be, what kind of incentives does the current system provide vs. what kind of incentives would a modified system provide?
Every one of us who’s worn the uniform has had to deal with duds who were just marking time until they hit their 20. Wouldn’t it be better for them, for other soldiers, and for the nation if they had an incentive to move on (and to let others move up into the slots the duds were occupying?)
And yes, you do have to account for the fact that 20 years pushing papers across a desk is different from spending 20 years humping a rucksack. But I think you could reform the current retirement process and still take that into account. For that matter, I wonder what percentage of retirees from even the Army and the Marines really spend 20 years humping a ruck? Sure there are some hard chargers but there are also a lot who spend the last half of their career (or more) doing nothing more strenuous than showing up for morning PT.
A lot of military jobs are the functional equivalent of putting cover sheets on the TPS reports.
The commission did not understand that military service is not just another job. Yes, they are only looking at the bottom line and not at the fact that even in peacetime, the military folks defend the country and make sacrifices that just don’t exist in a “normal job.” It saddens me to think that people think of military service as a “job,” when to those of us who serve it is a committment, a way of life, a sacrifice.
You hit the nail on the head. I retired at 21 years and while not exactly 21 years behind my peers in my new profession, I was definitely behind them in pay and benefits. My pension isn’t enough to live off of, especially with a family to support. I’m not sure if these people think we have some plush retirement and never have to work again or what is going through their heads. What it does give us is parity with our peers who didn’t serve. I don’t think that it is too much to ask for after 2+ decades of service that we are able to have equity with those that have a 20 year head start. This is especially true and even more important for service members who may have served in specialties that do not transition readily to the civilian world.
Don’t forget housing! The civilian may have 20 years of equity in a house. You PCS’d every few years and have no equity at all.
(and likely a divorce, an injury, child support, and a drinking problem to prevent the horrible nightmares of your friends dying while you tried everything to keep it together.)
I was a med retiree but my pension allowed for me to live in college and allowed for me to not put up with crap at a job I hated.
I have a story similar to Jonn’s. I retired after 22 yrs at age 44. My pension was about $1,000 a month. I crammed in a bunch of classes my last couple of years but came up just short of a Computer Science degree. Missing an art appreciation class or some such shit. Anyway first job after retiring was selling car parts, then moved on to changing oil at Wal Mart all to pay the bills and keep a roof over my families head. My sheer luck while talking to a customer one day I got an interview with a company that I could actually put my education to good use. From there I have continued to move up the chain to where I now have a decent job, can cover the bills with something left over for emergencies, but without that small stipend every month I probably would have been homeless. Those first jobs after I got out paid far less then my active duty pay. That is also why I have so little time for those burger flipper wanting $15 an hour. They need to quit whining and create opportunites for themselves. Anyway they degrade the retirement anymore and you will see a huge rush for the doors before they lose anymore ground to their civilian counterparts.
Let me tell you about 401K-type programs. Mine was an employer run program, and like a lot of folks, I can’t tell you a lot about how they work. When the stock-market tanked some time in 2006, I had about $30,000 in my account. In three days, that dropped to $20,000. One of my co-workers, who understood the markets and invested in high risk, high-return ventures, lost $40,000.
My advice? Unless you know what you’re doing, don’t put any money in this type of account that you’re not willing to lose.
That’s why you put your money in three piles – one for money that you need this year, another that you need 5-10 years from now, and the third is for your retirement. You don’t really lose the money you’ve invested unless you take it out. It may lose some value occasionally, but if you don’t take it out, you don’t lose that money. That’s why you need three piles so you’re not withdrawing the money from your retirement funds and losing it while it’s invested.
Been there, done that, got a t-shirt with a great big minus sign on it…
Sadly the stock market is one of the few vehicles left to make money though so a 401k or Roth aren’t bad ideas…
When everything collapsed I lost a job paying $80,000 a year…with 4 kids in college at the time…needless to say I don’t have a military pension, and I don’t have much of a 401k left here in my late 50s…I was fortunate to get a job paying half of what I used to make and have turned that around into a new position for about 3/3ths my old income. I live in a smaller home now, and have less bills and I figure between now and retirement I will be able to finish paying off the house I mortgaged to pay for educations and have enough money to be pretty comfortable…I’ve been pretty lucky all things considered.
I guess the point of the long story is that a 401k is a great vehicle for making money as long as the market is making decent money. But like Pinto says, be prepared to lose a lot of what you put in when things take a shitter or else you will be quite disappointed in the outcome.
I find it interesting in stories like these that the concern is always about retention and then they offer a review of lowered compensation packages as if that builds retention. As the economy takes off and we start shifting back to a workforce that has more openings than people there will be zero incentive for a mid grade NCO or Officer to stay in the military when options are available for
I meant to finish that thought with, when options are available for comparable civilian positions at higher salaries and long range benefits.
Didn’t the percentage of military retirement change some time in the late 80’s? When I came in (1980) it was 50% at 20 years, with an additional (I think) 1% or so for each year after 20 up to a maximum of 75% (that’s why old timers used to say “there’s no point in staying past 20 because you’re working for half pay – the notion being that since half your pay was guaranteed as retirement, you were only “working” for the other half.)
Then IIRC some time around 87 or 88 or so, it went to 40% at 20, meaning that in order to retire with 50% you had to serve 24 years. Isn’t that right?
http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/the-military-retirement-system.html
You’re thinking of the 1986 REDUX modifications, Martinjmpr. REDUX was mandatory for anyone joining after 1 Aug 1986, but was effectively made optional vice mandatory by the NDAA for FY2000. Those electing to stay with REDUX got a $30k bonus.
http://militarypay.defense.gov/retirement/ad/04_redux.html
It’s my understanding that relatively few chose the bonus, and that most who joined after 1 August 1986 opted instead to return to the “high-3, 50% at 20” system.
In a nutshell, ANY 401K is a way for a company to offer a perceived pension plan at no risk to the company.
Their liability is limited to matching contributions and maybe tracking vesting. Otherwise, it allows them to SAY they offer retirement compensation when essentially they are just providing you with a big savings account. Your funds are invested normally in a group of funds selected by the plan administrators, who may or may not have fiduciary status (meaning they put your best interests first) but they do get a guaranteed payout for managing the fund – which is more than you get if the market tanks.
The 401k can be a pretty sweet deal. I have one; I will be using it to fund my retirement.
If I had it my way, the Social(ist) Security pyramid scheme would be replaced with 401k plans all around.
For you retired folks – didja know that if your and your employer’s contributions to Social(ist) Security went into a 401k, you’d be a millionaire now?
For you retired folks – didja know that if your and your employer’s contributions to Social(ist) Security went into a 401k, you’d be a millionaire now?
But, then everyone would be a millionaire and it wouldn’t be worth as much?
A similar thing was actually discussed in the early 1980s, the last time Social Security was in a “crisis” (which it soon will be again).
I’ll leave it as the proverbial “exercise for the reader” to figure out why that didn’t get implemented, and which side of the political “house” rejected it out of hand.
Link your write-ups, Hondo…we seem to have some new readership…Just sayin’. Those down in the great state of Texas beat the loopholes and are sitting ahead of the others their age. Small sample but proof that we don’t need the gov’t to “help”.
Here’s the latest version of what I think DefendUSA is talking about:
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=54403
It in turn has a link to the original article, which explains things in more detail.
It makes no difference. That pension plan is going to change, regardless.
If the Roth IRAs had been available in the 1960s, I’d have stuffed money into them like gangbusters, but they weren’t. IRAs were a product of the 1980s, and the rules were confusing. That’s changed a lot.
The 401(k) didn’t start where I worked until 1992, and I went right to it. There were matching contributions, too, but living expenses in a city like Chicago really did overwhelm good intentions.
There is no easy answer to this, and nobody likes change. It’s unpleasant. You have to refigure everything. But if these 401(k)s are in the name of the account holder, they can be rolled over to an IRA when someone leaves before his 20 is up. This is true of any 401(k) account.
I don’t look at my retirement compensation merely as my pension. I also factor in my health care benefits and my disability pay. If all of that is on the chopping block, if all of that is up for negotiation (by negotiation I mean it will be taken away or modified to save money) then what will be the incentive to serve?
You can talk about military service as a calling all you want (and for the record, I believe it is) but you still have to pay bills and put a roof over your head and take care of your family. How in the HELL is the military going to attract the best and brightest and get them to stay if they are not going to at least make it worthwhile. Is that even a consideration when they put a commission together to consider how to compensate the military?
They are going to grandfather current military and retirees but only our pensions? Are we going to be forced into Obamacare now? Is my disability going to be taken from me? I EARNED what I get. I served for 24 years in every clime and place and did what was asked of me and more. And I was not alone. How the FUCK can politicians look us in the eye and tell us they are going to change what we were PROMISED! I don’t give a shit that money is tight. I have sacrificed ENOUGH. My family has sacrificed ENOUGH. Cut social programs for the takers and scammers before you rob those that served with Commitment and Honor. This is going to cause heavy rolls.
Its because elected officials (usually democrats) use DoD as the piggy bank to pay for their social programs.
Heaven forbid they take a dime out of DHHS, welfare, obama-phones, etc.
The reports are offically relased. Here’s a link to their page:http://www.mcrmc.gov/index.php/reports
ANd the reason that this Komission (and Kongress) is talking about changing (cutting) military retirement pay — instead of welfare and entitlements — is. . . . . . ???
Is because of the Politik.
The reality is that the military retirement check is more of a retainer pay than it is an “annuity” or “pension.” Military retirees are subject to recall to active duty. In fact, they’re mobilization assets for life… even if the chance for recall drops significantly after 60. Congress calls for a full mobilization? After all qualified reservists are mobilized, they start looking at the retiree control group for mobilizations. It’s like being “subject to the draft” for the remainder of your “productive” life. During the 1990s, the “40%” retirement was a reason that many were leaving the military in droves rather staying on. Most rightfully saw that as a slap in the face given what those that came in before were getting. If that’s not going to help retention, whatever 401K style retirement they come up with is going to do worst against retention. Service members roughed it out to 20, putting up with all the BS and sacrifices, knowing what waited for them after that 20. With a 401K? They don’have to wait around. They could go to a civilian job, roll that “401K” to their civilian job, then continue on building that retirement without the sacrifices required for military service. From a retention stand point, this is going to make active duty less attractive. Just come in and serve long enough to qualify for the GI Bill, then go reserve for the balance while getting a degree. Then, stay reserve while building a civilian career and a retirement… all without a 20 year active duty career. Move that retirement account while they’re at it. What does this mean for the civilian population at large? If not enough people serve on active duty, Congress can take action to make sure we have the minimum active duty manning. If not enough are sticking around in the reserves to become available for active duty, they can start the draft back up. The 18 to 25 group is just the first control group. Push come to shove, they could extend the draft to the 26 to 32 (+) age group. A new… Read more »
Went back and looked at their survey information. They divided by active, reserve, retiree, officer or enlisted, rank, deployed or didn’t deploy. This was an email survey.
Survey results were overwhelmingly in favor of the retirement that they proposed.
I noticed that one key sample category was absent from their requirement… longevity in the service.
I wouldn’t be surprised that those who have some serious time in the military were drastically outnumbered by those who were relatively new in the service out of those that replied in the survey.
Those results are inconsistent with the desires of the majority of those that I know of, in service, who are close to qualifying for the current retirement package.
Sorry to say, I took that survey. It was skewed and had “trap” questions and responses to push people into what the “board” wanted to see.
For example, “how much would you be interested in this option?” 0% all the way to 100%. Well, the 0% is “not at all / not sure” which means they can say “oh, well all these people that said 0% were just “unsure” about this.
For my answers, I purposely put “1%” for all of those because it was a purposeful / statistical way to show “plausible deniability” about whether people dislike or don’t know.
Reading through the report one item I noticed is that while they talk about the three main choices for TRICARE, they completely leave out the USFHP option. Granted USFHP is only available in limited areas it provides a commercial provider option for MTFs as a choice for providers. Now this may be crazy talk but if they simply wanted to expand access and give a greater choice for doctors/providers, then the simplest way to achieve this is to expand it to more areas. For example in the DC area John’s Hopkins is a USFHP carrier, which gives people choosing USFHP, access to all John’s Hopkins doctors, clinic, hospitals, etc.
Would solve their stated problem with out having to make huge changes to the current medical system.
Got further in the document and they briefly mention USFHP on pages 100-101, but as it relates to reducing inpatient and out patient visits. They also go one to compare TRICARE to the FEHBP, yet don’t take into account the unique nature of military health care, namely combat medicine. Some how I don’t think a commercial provider is going to cover battlefield injuries or be able to provide a treatment center in a combat zone, the way military medicine currently does. Their recommendation also falls apart as soon as you apply overseas locations, this report is just focused on CONUS. WTF could they have over looked these two items when they had at least TWO retired military officers on the commission. (I’ll leave the usefulness of the two individuals to someone else to discuss.)
The more I read this the more I have to agree, the big goal is to give service members a Health care allowance and force them on to Obamacare….
Reading further Their grand idea is in fact to make AD pay more for their dependents but that’s okay because they’ll be receiving the new BAHC which is BAHC=0.28*(Total Premium of Median Plan)+Copayment Amount. Using their numbers to calculate the BHAC (annual premium $8507, $2381.96 [28%], $920 [Co pays] = $3301.96 annual BAHC)
What they leave out is WHO is going to pay the rest of the $5205.04 annual cost for coverage.
For Retirees it doesn’t get much better:
Currently use TRICARE Prime, Standard, or Extra. These plans would be eliminated and replaced with TRICARE Choice. When fully implemented, non‐Medicare‐eligible retirees would pay a 20% premium cost share. The cost share would gradually increase at a rate of 1% per year for 15 years to adjust from the current 5% cost share to the ultimate 20% cost share. Non‐Medicare‐eligible beneficiaries would pay out‐of‐pocket expenses. They would not receive a BAHC. They would continue to have access to the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program. Under TRICARE Choice, they also would have access to health plans with partial dental coverage. Under TRICARE Choice, they would have access to vision coverage not available under TRICARE.
Though they Leave TRICARE for Life Alone.
USFHP would get rolled into the “new” TRICARE Choice” market place (i.e. Obamacare for Military)
O and the final kick in the pants, they want everything to be administered by OPM…
Side note, ONLY benefit I can see with moving the management of the “Trust Funds” to OPM is the DOD won’t be able to raid it.
While I haven’t been through the whole thing with a fine tooth comb, the ONE diamond in the rough, was the following: A single organization should be established that consolidates DoD’s commissaries and three exchange systems into a single defense resale system, herein referred to as the Defense Resale Activity (DeRA). Core commissary and exchange
benefits should be maintained at military installations around the world by continuing the sale of groceries and essential items at cost (plus a surcharge) and other merchandise at a discount. A portion of Military Service MWR programs should continue to be funded from DeRA profits. The BOD should approve the amount of net revenue to be contributed as MWR dividends and should ensure an equitable distribution among the Military Services
So far they appear to have gotten this one at least partially right in my opinion. What they did wrong here was not to fully combine the All MWR, (the non exchange side of NEXCOM and MCX) under one roof. Example temporary lodging (billeting, TLF, what have you) makes sense to put all under one roof DOD wide and one could make the case that contracting it out to a hotel chain could make some sense.
More and more on post lodging is getting contracted out to “hotel chains” and the like.
There’s a hotel at West Point called the “5-star” hotel. However, everyone calls it the 0.5 star hotel because its like infantry barracks from the 80s.
But, people “need” to stay there so it makes money hand over fist. Does that money come back to the military? Nope, goes to that “hotel chain” that runs it.
Some of us aren’t even lucky enough to have a retirement. I wanted nothing more than to be a career soldier. My plan was to enter the National Guard for the GI Bill, use it to go through college and ROTC, and then on to active duty as an officer. Then someone hijacked a couple of planes and screwed that plan up. I had to get out after nine years. I was too broken to deploy and would have had to switch to a Combat Arms MOS to remain anywhere near my home of record. I couldn’t go to school anymore because my field of study was classified as “non-productive” and the federal aid was being reduced. So, I tossed my life plan in the shitter and got out. I wasn’t able to stay in for the full 20. Now, I have to live with 30% disability for a number of physical, mental, and emotional ailments, and it took me five years of fighting with the VA to even get that. Beyond that, I am over-qualified to do anything even remotely related to the only job I did for nine years in the Army. It was a job I specifically chose for its civilian job skill equivalency. But, even with that, I know that I’m one of the lucky ones. This group of civilian bean-counters is looking at the costs and numbers. They don’t realize the shit a service member has to go through in twenty years during wartime. In my graduating class, a bunch of us signed up just after graduation. Only two are still in, one Enlisted and one Officer looking at their twenty-year mark in the next year or so. Me and six others are broken and had to get out. Four never made it home. Every year in the military is like two years in any civilian job. If you’re combat arms, then it’s three. These eighteen year old kids are getting out of the service with the bodily problems of sixty or seventy-year olds. Now, however, they’re looking at needing to go into the civilian… Read more »
What the Government needs to do is “draft” all those doctors and medical support personnel the NFL spends billions on every year and put them to work on the military fixing Soldiers back up.
I figure if they made them work on the military for a month every year, we’d all be in 10-times better shape than we are at retirement age.
Not to mention, most Soldiers wouldn’t be 5-10% Motrin by the time they retire.
Draft?
Does anybody really think that a large chunk of today’s generation is gonna stand by and let that happen?
A very large percentage of today’s kids are entitled and selfish. While most may not be, sufficient numbers are and I can only imagine the bleating and whining.
At this point, the draft wouldn’t work. The government has turned the majority of the civilian population into sheep. All they are doing is waiting for the next bag of grain to be opened and poured into the trough.
It is more likely that the government would have to turn to straight conscription to fill out the forces. Though, with most of the population, the cost for training them and getting them into any form of fighting shape would completely outweigh just raising military benefits and letting the volunteer force flourish.
I’m curious who these “experts” are and what real experience they have with the military at all? You want to know about retirement and what’s wrong with it? Make a board of retirees constantly fighting with the VA over benefits and getting treatment. As I mentioned somewhere up above, this “survey” was fixed from the start. I took it myself and saw all the little psychological “checks” in it, the statistical tricks and ploys. Survey takers answered “mostly” the way that the board wanted them to answer. (Its the same reason commercials use certain visual/audio effects) I did my best to fight the statistical battle, but I am only one man. Keeping Soldiers around “longer” requires reasons for Soldiers to actually “want” to stick around longer. If Soldiers are “rich” at 10 years, why would they want to stay around to lead? Good troops will give up fighting bureaucratic bookworms like these scumbags and go get a better job as a civilian very often. The perfect example of this is the Iraqi Army. There aren’t any contracts for enlisted personnel. So, Iraqis join up, do some training, make some money for a while, then when they have enough, they’d disappear and go home. No punishment, no big deal, etc. If they run out of money, they come back, train for a while, make some more money, and leave again. At the rate “they” are going now, with all the cuts, the separation boards, kicking troops out for any and every excuse they can think up, there might very well not be sizable military to apply this to anyway. Then, these same scumbags will get “applauded” for how much money they saved because there are so many fewer personnel to pay for. Side Note: In Iraq in 05 we had some retired reserve Senior NCOs that got mobilized with us for a deployment. Great crew who did their job and took care of their troops, no complaints about any of them. The other part of this is (for the Army) the “Human” Resources Command, as an example. A building with plenty… Read more »
2. Modernized Readiness Oversight
– establishes a four-star Command to oversee joint readiness, especially the
readiness of the military medical force
Weren’t they supposed to come up with ways to SAVE the government money? Just askin’
If the numpties want to do the 401k game, then they damned well better pay on level with the civilian market every two weeks.
They might also want to throw in stock options on some of the better performing defense industries. Lots of civies that get the 401k also get stock options.
Perhaps if ALL Federal employees (military and civilian) had the exact same retirement and benefit plans decision makers would see things a little different. One system for everyone – you’d think it would save dough as it could be streamlined, managed by one organization and so on.
And NO, you can’t have what I’m smoking. I don’t share very well…
So they wanna save money? Bring back the draft.
From the report itself, it doesn’t actually save the taxpayer/government much if any money, as the money saved in full career retired payouts is just redistributed to those who don’t do a full career.
I ran my own career earning using the formulas that the commission is suggesting.
The end result was that I should have left the service at the 12 year point without taking the retention bonus, but stayed in the RC until hitting 20 or more.
While the 401K that is transportable is nice, the reality is that mine would have been worth around $67K at the 10 year point (in 1997, which was around a 1 1/2 base pay at that point), which in all honesty is not a huge amount of money.
[…] Jonn at This Ain’t Hell discusses just what a 20-year pension means. […]
You presuppose BHO gives a shit about veterans or those currently serving. Wrong.