I believe there is a general problem with contracts about the future. I’m not talking the near future, where “near” is meant in context to the subject of the contract. Perhaps by “near” one might apply “foreseeable”, but people are not good at estimating the foreseeability of the future.
When the US passed its first military pension in 1778, it allowed half pay for seven years after the war’s end. Seven years, fourteen years — these are lengths of contract time found in general uses going back to biblical times.
The Bible itself, with the concept of the 50 year jubilee cycle suggests that the ability to set the duration of contract tines between men should not get beyond that.
Politicians in negotiations with state and local worker unions such as the SEIU and the teacher unions, or in pandering to large workforces—such as the military—make promises they simply cannot in good faith make. And those who accept such agreements are equally at fault.
Why? Because overly lavish entitlements, expensive pensions, are made too far into the future, and capture the wealth and works of those not even born yet! It’s theft. I say it is an intrinsically illegal form of contract, as it commits too much in a time frame that the current leaders of the current generation can not reasonably foresee.
“or in pandering to large workforces—such as the military—make promises they simply cannot in good faith make. And those who accept such agreements are equally at fault.”
You seem to think military pay is something given to encourage votes. It is not. It is given to encourage people to volunteer to go to nasty places and do nasty things while at risk of their lives. In exchange, you can sit on your butt in freedom, protected by their actions.
We could require military service. As a country, we decided long before I entered the military to get volunteers instead. To do that, pay and retirement were required. The LAWS governing my pay and retirement were passed and signed before I entered the military.
It is obvious you don’t want to keep faith with the retired military because it would be cheaper for you to renege on the contract. Screw you! You enjoyed the benefit of my service while I was in, and you can pay me the balance due now that I am out.
“I say it is an intrinsically illegal form of contract, as it commits too much in a time frame that the current leaders of the current generation can not reasonably foresee.”
You might want to look up the military redux retirement pay debacle. Some years after I entered, retirement pay was changed. Years later, they folks who entered under that system got out. In mass. They simply did not have the incentive to stay in for a career.
Congress, in response to a critical failure in retention, changed their retirement system to match the one I entered under. Not because Congress wanted their votes, but because it wanted their continued service.
Again, military retirement is a contract. It is a shame someone on FreeRepublic wants to cheat on that contract, robbing those who risked their lives to make the republic free. And yes, my life was at risk many times. My last combat deployment was to Afghanistan on the ground at 49. I also spent some time after that in a South American country where nasty people would have liked to kidnap me.
And I did it trusting the US government and the American people. I believed then (and now) that they will uphold their end of the bargain. But I am ashamed a fellow Freeper wants to cheat me instead. That is disgusting.