Skip to comments.President Obama Offers the Military a 'Risky Scheme'
Posted on 09/10/2011 9:19:05 AM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
When President Obama provides his roadmap for saving the economy, he needs to explain why it is bad to privatize Social Security but good to privatize military retirement, changing it from a government pension plan to a 401(k) investment program. And if this really is the key to economic solvency in the retirement system, then why not privatize Social Security as well?
When things aren't broken, don't fix them. The all-volunteer military system still attracts some of our finest young people even though we have been at war for ten years. If a change to 401(k)s is a good idea, let Congress try it out first -- and then expand to other government employees who don't risk lives while living under deplorable conditions and enduring long family separations -- before implementing it on the military.
President Obama should clarify who will be impacted to avoid fueling fears that the government will renege on its promises. (Ask current retirees what they were promised with respect to health care versus what they're getting.) SECDEF Panetta said that "it will not affect serving service members"; however, the report promoting this idea recommends it be implemented immediately and includes provisions allowing those over 50 to contribute an extra $5,500 "catch-up contribution" to their new 401(k)s.
If this new development doesn't impact currently serving military members, how will it save an estimated $250 billion dollars over the next 20 years? ...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Why not convert ALL government and congressional pensions to 401K?
As opposed to “if the government is in charge of your retirement there is a 100% chance that politicians will steal it”
Here’s what I want to know. Why was it bad when Bush was President to take two percentage points of our Social Security withholding and divert it instead to a government-approved individual retirement account, yet it’s good when Obama is President to take those same two percentage points away from Social Security and allow people to spend it on consumer goods instead? Back in 2005, Democrats were decrying that denying those two points away from Social Security would not only bankrupt the system, but would leave people in the same predicament as Enron stockholders when they retire. Yet these same Democrats now talk about what a great idea it is to deny Social Security these same two points and let people spend it on the here and now instead of investing it for their retirement.
A 401K seems a pretty lousy tradeoff for the possibility of being killed or maimed for life while fighting at the behest the politicians.
After the military is shifted over, then the rest of the government will be forced to follow suit. 'If it's good enough for the brave men and women who protect America, it's good enough for you'.
But make no mistake. Either way, the military is shifting. The long term projections are catastrophic. The military will be utterly unaffordable if the system isn't reformed soon. There's no way around it. The old system, the one that exists now, is not long for this world.
There is nothing that say Congress must keep any retirement system going forever at any cost. Or that it has to keep working the same way it worked (and I use ‘worked’ loosely) for prior retirees. It could become something you pay a ton into, but get far, far less out of and they could still say “it’s still there, we didn’t kill it, we had to modify it to save it/bad economic times/etc”...
Problem is we really can’t afford to pay someone a 50% of base pay retirement after only 20 years of service. What they really need to do is go to a 30 years before retirement or delay the pay out until after they reach 60. Either way, Congress is looking for costs to cut and military retirement is an easy one.
I would agree with this for government employees but not military. 20 years in the military is a lot different than 20 years as a civilian. Putting your life on the line for 20 years, for the American people, seems to me to be worth the money, and more, for their service.
Have to save all those Democrats with money in mutual funds (teachers, firefighters, govt. employees). Put the military retirement in, then let the Democrats withdraw, leaving the military retirees holding the bag having paid off the Democrats.
You can pretty much forget about good people staying a long time. The reason a lot of military folks stay and accept the conditions and pay is because of the 20 year retirement. The only reason I stayed 20 is because my wife would not agree ot my getting out at 14, because of the retirement. If I had had a portable 401K, I probably would have been out much earlier. I think this will greatly reduce the quality of senior personnel.
if ordinary people are in charge of their own retirement there is a chance that they may lose it.
politicians spin as always.
First thing you need to teach you kids about money is that nobody is going to help you with money but will do anything to take it away from you.
100% chance that politicians will steal it is a fact,see history.
It is in addition to retirement instead of in place of but they are offered.
The thing with a 20 year service is that you are likely to come out damaged. It isn't the military's fault, (usually) it is the nature of the job. And those damages usually get worse over time.
Why not banish 401(k) programs entirely, stop taxing capital gains, and let people do whatever they wish with their money, without restrictions, including invest for retirement in any manner that they wish?
Oh yeah, I forgot, the Constitution specifically gives the IRS the power to control in what manner employers may force their employees to save for retirement.
The civilian component of the Federal government already has had something very similar to this for a long time. Despite what some people seem to think, very few Feds get the big pensions everybody thinks they do.
“let Congress try it out first — and then expand to other government employees who don’t risk lives while living under deplorable conditions and enduring long family separations”
Thanks for your service LTC Herring but your lack of research on this subject is embarrassing.
Sure we can afford it. Lets get our economy back on track, increase revenues, and cut benefits for illegal immigrants. Of course we can afford it. Don’t believe the lies.
Why not eliminate all government pensions except for the military?
Or, at a minimum, eliminate pensions for elected officials.
Spending 20 years in the military isn't quite like spending 20 years in congress with a full staff to count your weekly kickbacks and illegal contributions and track your golf dates on the calendar.
“Putting your life on the line for 20 years, for the American people, seems to me to be worth the money, and more, for their service.”
I would agree for some but not for others, the guys out actually fighting at the tip of the spear you’re right. The guys in the rear or back in the US doing things like acquisition, not so much. One of the things they should do is quit moving them around so often. Also, yes if we quit paying for illegals and welfare queens and all the other social programs but if they did that who would vote for the RATs?
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.