Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Retiree Benefits for the Military Could Face Cuts
NY Slimes ^ | 18 Sep 11 | JAMES DAO and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

Posted on 09/19/2011 3:42:14 AM PDT by SkyPilot

As Washington looks to squeeze savings from once-sacrosanct entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, another big social welfare system is growing as rapidly, but with far less scrutiny: the health and pension benefits of military retirees.

Military pensions and health care for active and retired troops now cost the government about $100 billion a year, representing an expanding portion of both the Pentagon budget — about $700 billion a year, including war costs — and the national debt, which together finance the programs.

Making even incremental reductions to military benefits is typically a doomed political venture, given the public’s broad support for helping troops, the political potency of veterans groups and the fact that significant savings take years to appear.

But the intense push in Congress this year to reduce the debt and the possibility that the Pentagon might have to begin trimming core programs like weapons procurement, research, training and construction have suddenly made retiree benefits vulnerable, military officials and experts say.

And if Congress fails to adopt the deficit-reduction recommendations of a bipartisan joint Congressional committee this fall, the Defense Department will be required under debt ceiling legislation passed in August to find about $900 billion in savings over the coming decade. Cuts that deep will almost certainly entail reducing personnel benefits for active and retired troops, Pentagon officials and analysts say.

“We’ve got to put everything on the table,” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said recently on PBS, acknowledging that he was looking at proposals to rein in pension costs.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cuts; military; pensions; retirements; tricare; veterans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: PapaBear3625

The trouble is active duty personnel and Vets weren’t going to vote for Obama and Dem.s anyway and the Dems. know that.


21 posted on 09/19/2011 5:04:51 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy
The trouble is active duty personnel and Vets weren’t going to vote for Obama and Dem.s anyway and the Dems. know that.

But now he's given them yet another reason to actively organize AGAINST Obama and the Dems. And military people know a bit about how to organize an operation.

22 posted on 09/19/2011 5:13:07 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (When you've only heard lies your entire life, the truth sounds insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jch10
Didn’t read the whole article but it didn’t mean cut benefits of those already retired, did it?

Yes, you should read the article.

They want to cut military retired pay for those veterans already retired. The administration also wants to compare the military TRICARE system to what civilians pay and receive.

We have to remember here that the NY Slimes is basically on the Obama payroll. These are shills for the administration. Case in point, there is a book by a former liberal that was discussed on Bill Bennett's morning radio program. The book is titled "Class Warfare - America's Failing Schools."

The NY Slimes book reviewers didn't even read it, but attacked it using the "people are saying" argument.

The NY Slimes is "floating" this proposal of slashing current military retirement and TRICARE under the guise of "fairness."

Don't buy any of it.

If it were a question of "fairness" - we would not be comparing retired disabled veterans who served their nation in multiple wars for over 20 years with illegal aliens whose anchor baby was born for free in a California ER and who now get Food Stamps (SNAP ATM cards), SSDI, AFDC, in state tuition, and possibly unemployment checks for 99 weeks.

It seems the proposal "floated" previously to hand our current serving troops the promise of a lousy 401K instead of a 20 year military retirement went over like a lead balloon.

That is why the NY Slimes, Democrats in Congress, and the Obama administration is "floating" an attack on current military retirees.

23 posted on 09/19/2011 5:19:42 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

I am more optomistic than ever. NY9 should have taught us all that the media can no longer manipulate the masses with scare tactics.

As long as we don’t defeat ourselves.


24 posted on 09/19/2011 5:29:17 AM PDT by swpa_mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
"How can military pensions be growing when we have cut our military?"

Because we have renegged on the unspoken understanding that we were to have the common courtesy of dying young.

After all, they used to provide cigarettes in the C-Rations. We were never supposed to survive the wars. We weren't supposed to take those retirement offers seriously.

Bottom line, those who avoided service are now in charge and getting even with those of us who did serve, while they ridiculed us for doing so.

25 posted on 09/19/2011 5:52:15 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("Madison, Wisconsin is 30 square miles surrounded by reality.", L. S. Dryfus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Here in Illinois public service pensions are “untouchable” and cannot be cut!
Some are generous beyond belief!
See Stroger’s secretary and many others.

Lawyer: ‘Welching’ on public employee pensions not an option

The people who wrote the 1970 Illinois Constitution knew they were guaranteeing public employees that their pensions would not be reduced once they started working, according to a new legal analysis by the Senate Democrats’ top lawyer....

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x1512113740/Analysis-Illinois-constitution-delegates-intended-to-guarantee-public-employee-pensions

My father was career Navy and collected past the age of 91 (Smile)!
My mother still receives some.


26 posted on 09/19/2011 6:12:18 AM PDT by DUMBGRUNT (The best is the enemy of the good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

The FIRST pension to be reduced should be that of CONGRESS and the ADMINISTRATION who has caused this mess. Always amazes me in the private sector, some blowhard makes it to the top, wrecks the company, then walks away with a few million in pensions for his efforts. The military should be the LAST cut for pensions. The ONLY function of the US Gov allowed by the constitution is to PROTECT and DEFEND the citizens. And they cut that one first ... what a mess.


27 posted on 09/19/2011 6:15:14 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

I don’t click on the NYT site, ever......but thanks for the explanation.

Our veterans’ benefits should never be cut. Dems won’t be that stupid, well, they are pretty stupid.


28 posted on 09/19/2011 6:21:19 AM PDT by jch10 (I stand with Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: swpa_mom

Scare the vets? Friend, they HAVE ALREADY STARTED to cut our benefits and increase all our payouts back to the government. It started years ago and continues to increase every year. EVERY year they increase our health care and cut the benefits of it.


29 posted on 09/19/2011 6:26:57 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY mouth shall say: Jesus Christ IS LORD!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Lord I despise and hate this administration as much as is possible to do. The military pensions are the LAST PENSIONS in the USA that should be cut. The only people who have actually DONE something FOR our country!!! It just makes me ill to hear of this. I wish I could do more than vote in every election (which I do) for the right side.


30 posted on 09/19/2011 6:32:14 AM PDT by marychesnutfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swpa_mom
I know that the Federal government needs to reduce spending, but if it drastically cuts military spending its priorities are very misplaced. Today, military spending represents about %5 of GDP. This is much lower than the approximately 10% of GDP maintained on military spending throughout the 1960s. The real growth areas in spending for the federal government have been non-military entitlements and healthcare costs.

If you believe that the primary function of government is national defense, then I think most people would say we should not significantly cut our spending in this area. Shouldn't we first consider cuts in other less essential parts of government?

The current retirement system is the glue that keeps our current all-volunteer professional army together. If you do a away with it, you had better have something very attractive to replace it or we will lose some of the best and most experienced personnel. This would greatly reduce our military readiness at a time in world history when this would be very dangerous.


31 posted on 09/19/2011 6:56:54 AM PDT by 3Fingas ( Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

OK, so maybe NOW the troops won’t allow themselves to be used by O’bummer and his pathetic wife for photo ops...
Just say NO!!!!!!


32 posted on 09/19/2011 6:58:59 AM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msrngtp2002

“I bet it could probably be done with as little as 100 thousand at enlistment.”

At historical rates of return in the stock market, say 7% real rate of return, $100K would become nearly $400K in today’s dollars ($387K) by the time 20 years was done. Assuming an enlistment age of 18, a 48-year old could buy a lifetime annuity of $1885 monthly with no inflation protection or $1623 monthly with a 3% inflation rider.

I have no idea how these figures compare to the standard annuities given to military retirees, but if they waited until age 65 to collect it, it would grow to $1.2 million in today’s dollars. That amount could generate an annuity of $6,600 monthly without an inflation rider or $5,251 with a 3% rider. Again, I don’t know what the norm is, but these strike me as reasonably generous guaranteed retirement income amounts—especially if they also qualify for a Social Security benefit (do they? Sorry, I have no idea).

Anyway, your proposed amount could be adjusted as needed so that the results better matched whatever retirees now can count on from the system. What I like about pre-funding in the fashion proposed is that we could allow those who leave before 20 years to obtain a pro rata share of the amount vested. For example, if they retire after 10 years, they’d be entitled to half of the $100K plus whatever earnings had been generated to date. So even if the back end benefit were not quite as generous as it is today, I would assume this restructuring might be attractive since I believe military can’t collect their retirement until/unless they’ve served 20 years.


33 posted on 09/19/2011 7:22:54 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
"...another big social welfare system..."

Stopped reading this tripe right there.

Deferred military compensation is not "welfare".

FU NYSlimes

34 posted on 09/19/2011 7:23:09 AM PDT by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten

Calvin Coolidge
35 posted on 09/19/2011 7:43:44 AM PDT by wasp69 (space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msrngtp2002

A long time ago, it was possible to have part of your military pay withheld by the Treasury, and kept at interest until discharge. Possibly it’s time to revive this?


36 posted on 09/19/2011 7:50:40 AM PDT by Mountain Troll (My investment plan - Canned food and shotguns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Old Retired Army Guy; ScottinVA
A few things are emerging about this article.

1. It is clear to me that the NY Slimes purposely used explosive terms like "social welfare" and others to describe military retirement, and for one reason. The "C" word. That word is Contempt. The NY Slimes, and whoever in the Obama Administration who colluded on this article, does not even use the word "WELFARE" to describe Welfare Programs!

2. The NY Slimes could not even get anyone in the article to endorse this fiasco proposal, except members of the "board" of hatchet libs who were on it. Even the officer who served a few years and didn't retire would not support the 'give them a pittance too' justification for gutting military retirements.

3. Liberals in Congress and the Administration are definitely hoping and trying to see if this stinking pile of manure will be bought as perfume. I think they will be sorely disappointed. Look at the link below, and the comments. This is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND - which is as liberal as you can get. The comments, from liberals, look like they could have been written by Conservatives. They are outraged at this proposal. This is amazing to me.

DU Link - Retiree Benefits for the Military Could Face Cuts

________________________

"I find it appalling that we cut these benefits, these promises we made. Our word to our military should be kept. I am thinking we can find plenty of other places to cut. We should look at each lobbyist office on K street, look at their special programs, any money that goes toward their agendas and start cutting there first. When people give huge chunks of their lives for our country or in a job where they are promised benefits when they retire, we owe it to them to make sure the promises are kept."

______________________________

"Our word to any of our citizens should be kept especially the military. My father is retired military and he put in his time. The people proposing these cuts only care about using the military to show military might but don't give a damn about them after they have served their purpose. You see, you have to look at the "job makers" broken promises to retirees. That was the map to attack military retirees and veterans...no one was paying attention...."

_______________________________

"Why are they lumping health care costs for current military folks . . . in with the retiree benefits? That reminds me of the way politicians like to lump Medicare costs with Social Security costs and then say that both of them have to be cut, even though Social Security isn't the problem. That said, there are two obvious partial fixes. One: the annual premium hasn't changed since 1995, and it's reasonable to at least increase it according to inflation. Second, if military retirees have other jobs but prefer to use Tricare, and if those jobs offer health care benefits, then the employers should reimburse the Federal government by the amount that they would normally pay for health insurance."

_________________________

"Since when is a military retiree's health and pension benefits a "welfare system"? Great spin on that. These brave men and women risked their lives, their families, their mental health for people like 7 deferment Cheney and no-show bush, and now we call that welfare???? Losing limbs, minds and lives for our country is now considered welfare. Yet when GE pays 0 taxes and gets billions in a refund we call that good business? I find this spin of risking your life in battle and considering it welfare to be beyond disgusting. I guess the RepubliCON congress supports the troops only when they need them. When they are no longer of any use they kick them aside and force promised benefit cuts on them.

37 posted on 09/19/2011 8:13:24 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Old Retired Army Guy; ScottinVA
A few things are emerging about this article.

1. It is clear to me that the NY Slimes purposely used explosive terms like "social welfare" and others to describe military retirement, and for one reason. The "C" word. That word is Contempt. The NY Slimes, and whoever in the Obama Administration who colluded on this article, does not even use the word "WELFARE" to describe Welfare Programs!

2. The NY Slimes could not even get anyone in the article to endorse this fiasco proposal, except members of the "board" of hatchet libs who were on it. Even the officer who served a few years and didn't retire would not support the 'give them a pittance too' justification for gutting military retirements.

3. Liberals in Congress and the Administration are definitely hoping and trying to see if this stinking pile of manure will be bought as perfume. I think they will be sorely disappointed. Look at the link below, and the comments. This is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND - which is as liberal as you can get. The comments, from liberals, look like they could have been written by Conservatives. They are outraged at this proposal. This is amazing to me.

DU Link - Retiree Benefits for the Military Could Face Cuts

________________________

"I find it appalling that we cut these benefits, these promises we made. Our word to our military should be kept. I am thinking we can find plenty of other places to cut. We should look at each lobbyist office on K street, look at their special programs, any money that goes toward their agendas and start cutting there first. When people give huge chunks of their lives for our country or in a job where they are promised benefits when they retire, we owe it to them to make sure the promises are kept."

______________________________

"Our word to any of our citizens should be kept especially the military. My father is retired military and he put in his time. The people proposing these cuts only care about using the military to show military might but don't give a damn about them after they have served their purpose. You see, you have to look at the "job makers" broken promises to retirees. That was the map to attack military retirees and veterans...no one was paying attention...."

_______________________________

"Why are they lumping health care costs for current military folks . . . in with the retiree benefits? That reminds me of the way politicians like to lump Medicare costs with Social Security costs and then say that both of them have to be cut, even though Social Security isn't the problem. That said, there are two obvious partial fixes. One: the annual premium hasn't changed since 1995, and it's reasonable to at least increase it according to inflation. Second, if military retirees have other jobs but prefer to use Tricare, and if those jobs offer health care benefits, then the employers should reimburse the Federal government by the amount that they would normally pay for health insurance."

_________________________

"Since when is a military retiree's health and pension benefits a "welfare system"? Great spin on that. These brave men and women risked their lives, their families, their mental health for people like 7 deferment Cheney and no-show bush, and now we call that welfare???? Losing limbs, minds and lives for our country is now considered welfare. Yet when GE pays 0 taxes and gets billions in a refund we call that good business? I find this spin of risking your life in battle and considering it welfare to be beyond disgusting. I guess the RepubliCON congress supports the troops only when they need them. When they are no longer of any use they kick them aside and force promised benefit cuts on them.

38 posted on 09/19/2011 8:13:41 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: swpa_mom
If you have ever read anything previously by these two Liberal reporters, you would not be surprised at this spin.

JAMES DAO and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

These two are to the left of Stalin.

39 posted on 09/19/2011 8:16:51 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
It’s time people realize that EVERYTHING should be on the table. That includes SS, Medicare, federal workers, farm subsidies, the military...everything.

The problem with that thinking, HarleyD, is that "EVERYTHING" is not on the table - and under the Democrats in Congress and with Obama in charge of the Executive branch, they won't be.

Entitlement programs were exempt from cuts under the debt deal - and that includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all welfare spending (to include unemployment, Food Stamps, and everything else).

The "Super Committee" will meet, and if the Republicans don't agree to tax increases, and the Democrats won't agree to any real cuts, then 50% of the cuts come out of the DoD (which will devastate our defense and our economy) - and the other cuts from discretionary spending, BUT - they only want to cut things like what providers are paid for out of Medicare/Medicaid - meaning they want to screw the hospitals and health care workers out of money. Congress still wants the teats to keep giving milk, they just don't want to pay for it.

All of this is looming to be a disaster.

Entitlements (the real "Welfare" to use the NY Slimes language) have to be cut.

It is the only way to save our nation from certain disaster and meltdown.

40 posted on 09/19/2011 8:23:07 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson