Posted on 06/28/2011 12:27:27 AM PDT by Racehorse
Once again, the military retirement system is coming under the scrutiny of budgeters and deficit reduction task forces. This time the assault comes from various fronts – from outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and incoming Secretary Leon Panetta to Vice President Joe Biden.
Earlier this year Gates stated, “Everything is on the table” for budget cuts. Panetta used the same line during his recent nomination hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, urging more significant, program-specific changes rather than an across-the-board, salami-slice budget cutting approach.
Tasked by President Obama with finding over $400 billion dollars in savings over the next 10-12 years , Gates has become a bit more specific on where some of the savings may be achieved – specifically the military retirement system.
Gates has criticized the “one-size-fits-all” 20-year retirement structure and has directed the Defense Science Board to establish a working group to develop alternative options.
In his final hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee last week, he noted, “70-80% of the force does not stay until retirement but leave with nothing,” endorsing an early vesting system.
Even more ominous, multiple media reports have indicated military retirement cutbacks could be in play in ongoing deficit-reduction talks between administration and congressional leaders, headed by Vice President Joe Biden.
Most current proposals are based on recommendations of the 2009 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), which included:
The last major revision to the military retirement system was in 1986 when Congress passed the so-called REDUX system as part of an earlier budget-cutting drill.
REDUX entailed far smaller cuts than the QRMC envisions. Under that plan, post-1986 entrants were to receive 40% of high-three-year average basic pay (vs. 50%) at 20 years of service.
In contrast to the advocacy of current Defense leaders, then-Secretary Caspar Weinberger warned Congress that REDUX cuts would cause serious future readiness problems by undermining retention.
He was proven right. A little over a decade later, Congress had to repeal REDUX when the Joint Chiefs of Staff complained it was hurting career retention. And that was in peacetime.
Think what you will about the 20-year retirement system, MOAA believes it’s the primary reason retention hasn’t imploded over the last 10 years of unprecedented strains on career servicemembers and their families.
The problem with proposals to cut overall military retirement costs while also implementing an expensive new 10-year vesting plan is that there’s only one place for that money to come from – the pockets of those who stay for a full career.
If you tried to build a plan to slash career retention, it’s hard to conceive a better way than taking lots of money from people who serve a career in order to pay more to people who separate early.
Imagine the impact if the QRMC proposals were in effect in today’s wartime environment.
A 10-year soldier facing a fourth or fifth combat deployment would have a choice between (a) taking the vested military retirement and leaving to pursue a civilian career or (b) having to serve decades longer (with who knows how many more deployments) before being eligible for military retired pay at age 57-60. What do you think would happen to retention then?
Especially knowing the services let very few people serve that long – but force nearly all out of uniform between their early 40s and early 50s.
Advocates for these initiatives seek to sugar-coat them by saying they wouldn’t affect anyone now serving, but would only apply to new entrants. That also was true of the REDUX system, and we know how that turned out.
The only thing grandfathering the current force does is let retirement-cutting leaders evade responsibility for their ill-advised actions – by deferring the inevitable retention disaster for a decade and dumping it on their successors.
MOAA believes it’s essential to avoid repeating past mistakes that traded temporary budget relief for major national security risks.
Please use MOAA’s suggested message to urge Administration, Defense, and congressional leaders against jeopardizing future retention and readiness through ill-advised military retirement cutbacks.
Thanks, R.
How much would we save if all the retirement packages that members of Congress receive, regardless of longevity, were stopped??
This is even more distressing to me:
Bachmann eyes cuts to veterans health benefits
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/28/bachmann-veterans-cuts/
Bachmann Takes Heat From Veterans’ Group for Proposing Benefits Cuts
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/29/bachmann-takes-heat-veterans-group-proposing-benefits-cuts/
Bachmann plan would cut veterans benefits
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/01/military-michele-bachmann-veterans-budget-cuts-012811w/
I expect people like Mr. Obama and other leftists to go after veterans and the military, but so-called “conservative” Republicans?
Dear Leon Panetta, FU! Why not cut the Obamacare you Communist!
It looks to me like she’s for offsetting military disability payments with social security disability payments. Why should a disabled vet get both?
As for cutting VA funding, the current system needs to be reformed. Way too many retirees are scamming the military disability system. If someone is truly injured in the line of duty, our country is obligated to take care of them. Unfortunately, too many retirees who receive disability are NOT truly disabled and are employable. I’m not talking about retirees who have had arms and legs blown off. I’m talking about folks who milk each and every health issue, including self created ones, for all they are worth.
Of course, anyone who is currently scamming the system is likely to oppose cuts in their benefits, but that doesn’t make what they are doing right. Again, true disabilities created in the line of duty? No problem. Getting paid retired AND disability pay for hitting the magic 50% mark for “disabilities” that truly do not prevent you from working? Eh, not so much.
The rules should be tightened and every retiree should be reevaluated by independent medical commissions.
How come Congressional pay, retirement, medical benefits, etc., are NEVER on the table?
Horse manure.
Only AFTER the lifelong bums, deadbeats, and parasites who comprise the Democrat party base and have never contributed anything productive in their lives except for litters of more Democrats get THEIR retirements (and everything else) utterly minimized can discussions about freezing military benefits at current levels even begin.
Not one second earlier.
While we’re at it, why should they be in the top 10% of “wage” earners. They don’t read, they babble incoherently and they are a bunch of liars, perverts and thieves.
Cap their pay at 100k and limit them to three staffers - one in DC and two at home. Sell all the extra buildings when Department Energy, Education, HHS are eliminated and all other departments cut back 25% of staff.
Whatever cuts are made, what must accompany them is a grandfathering for anyone currently in the Armed Forces for the past 10 years.
Back in the mid 1990s, the then-GOP - controlled Congress was mulling over a “High-One” milirary retirement calculation plan, which would`ve computed military pay based on the average of the active-duty pay in the final year prior to retirement. The current system computes pay based on what`s earned at the end of active duty.
The problem with “High-1” was — in addition to often significant decreases in retired pay — the fact no one was going to “grandfathered.” That change was going to affect all, regardless of time in service.
The explosion of letters, phone calls and faxes from constituents and service organizations pushed Congress to kill the whole idea.
I agree. As I wrote, the military disability system needs major reform, but there are plenty of other federal programs that should be scrutinized first (or at the same time at least). Across-the-board cuts are especially cowardly, but that’s the route most often taken. Across-the-board cuts make everyone suffer, including those who have earned their benefits, like someone who is truly disabled in the line of duty or served honorably until retirement. It’s so much harder to make the tough choices and set priorities for federal spending. I doubt they’ll ever convince me welfare moms and corporate subsidies are as important as paying the military, but that’s what political minds apparently believe.
You have hit upon a valid question....Veterans getting PTSD disability by scamming the system. A few years ago there was some entrepreneurs up in Oklahoma that were charging for a school on how to scam the system and get what is known as “Crazy Money”. I know of a guy who is getting it and was a radio technician on C-130’s in Thailand whose job was not a member of the flight crew. He flew into Saigon a couple of times to fix airplanes and is now getting 100% disability.... Part of the solution is instead of letting those liars bullshitte some little VA psychologist....let them appear before a panel of guys who were there. That would soon cull out the phony’s and the ones who might have legitimate issues. Remember there was only about 1 in 10 that actually got shot at.....the rest were support folks...... The VA needs to review all of those PTSD claims....I’m guessing that about 80% are bogus...
I know way too many ex-military types REALLY using the VA system for WAY more than they deserve.
If more money (and real focus) were spent scrutinizing those getting VA services, there would be MILLIONS, and MILLIONS (if not BILLIONS) saved.
Let’s just say through some of the talk I’ve heard from the older guys nearer retirement the name of the game is to list as many ailments as you possibly can when retirement comes.
Can’t expect those who have been granted the power to set their own pay and provide their own retirement -Can’t be expecting them to cut their own throat can we? Much easier to slice and dice everybody else. Weiner retains his privileges.
His use of that taxpayer funded gym—his retirement benefits— ah the greatful nation ....how queer it has become in the nations Capitol once we tolerated them divesting themselves of such principles as Religion and Morality.
“God and th eSoldier ALL men adore In time of Trouble then no more.when the shootin’ is over -and all things are righted
God is forgotten —and the soldier is slighted.” Or as Pogo put it “We has met the enemy and he is us. The more things changes the more theys stay the same. Aint no new thing undr the sun ,son. —
My idea would have saved the government a lot of money if they had accepted it almost 30 years ago. I suggested that upon my retirement, instead of a monthly check for the rest of my life I would be happy to take a lump sum. In my case I suggested $200,000 and they would be done with me. No more money, no benefits, nothing. My idea went up the chain but was laughed at. Well both I and the government lost out. I could have put that $200,000 into a business and have a lot more today than my monthly military retirement check. The government could have saved over $400,000 not counting the medical benefits I have been collecting for the past 27 years!
Fergit Mil Retirement—the gubmint is not good for its bs promised—ask Col Day, former WWII Marine, Ret AF pilot, POW, etc.
get yer paycheck up front, pay, allowances, quarters, medical, etc. all in one lump sum paycheck!!!!!
Old Marines Saying:
Ya Can shock the sh!t troops...
But ya cannot sh!t the shock troops...
Semper Honest!
Just Plain Dick
*****
I say Military retirees are in the same boat as those to receive Social Security.
If we can't afford one, we can't afford the other.
I suggested almost the same thing back in the 70s, except I said a lump-sum payout of 50% of the expected lifetime retirement benefit. With that much cash on hand, I could have as much income from investments as retired pay would have provided... and if I died, my wife would still have it.
Like your idea, mine did not prosper.
That’s true. Some military retirees try to claim every possible ailment. As I understand it, 50% is the magic number. If they get 50% disability, they get a separate disability check in addition to retirement pay. Less than 50%, they get that portion of their retired pay tax free. There are retirees who collect both retirement AND disability AND lead very active lives. Military retirees who bilk the system like this are scum. They are as much a part of the problem as welfare moms. Worse, they take resources away from service members who are seriously disabled in combat or direct combat support operations. Like I wrote, the government needs to create independent commissions to reevaluate the military disability system right along with all the other inefficient and fraudulent crap in government programs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.