Lawmakers open to changes in military benefits (lifetime health care on the chopping block?)

Seattle Times ^ | 10/22/11 | DONNA CASSATA

[Libloather]

Lawmakers open to changes in military benefits
By DONNA CASSATA
Associated Press
Originally published Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 4:43 AM

WASHINGTON — The government's promise of lifetime health care for the military's men and women is suddenly a little less sacrosanct as Congress looks to slash trillion-dollar-plus deficits.

Republicans and Democrats alike are signaling a willingness - unheard of at the height of two post-Sept. 11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - to make military retirees pay more for coverage. It's a reflection of Washington's newfound embrace of fiscal austerity and the Pentagon's push to cut health care costs that have skyrocketed from $19 billion in 2001 to $53 billion.

The numbers are daunting for a military focused on building and arming an all-volunteer force for war. The Pentagon is providing health care coverage for 3.3 million active duty personnel and their dependents and 5.5 million retirees, eligible dependents and surviving spouses. Retirees outnumber the active duty, 2.3 million to 1.4 million.

[algernonpj]

And no one talking about the hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on:

Anchor babies, illegals, new immigrants, and their respective extended families,
Fixing up ramshackle Mexican trucks that will put Americans out of work,
Sponsoring green technology overseas,
Paying college tuition for students from China,
Setting up the Moslem Brotherhood and al-Quaeda in Libya and Egypt,
Setting up CDC labs overseas,
Paying for post doctoral degrees for Indian scientists,
Billions in tax credits for illegals from the IRS,
Subsidizing Palestinian terrorists,
Funding the Taliban and other terrorist organizations in Afghanistan,
Paying Oregon Forestry companies to hire foreign workers

[xzins]

we’ve got millions on the government dole for phantom ailments like ADD and bad backitis, so the idiot lawmakers decide that’s a good time to chop back on LEGITIMATE payments to people they made promises to who ACTUALLY went and did a job at risk of life and limb.

Lawmakers make me sick. I despise every SOB who tries to touch anything either promised, indicated, or even hinted at to our troops for the VOLUNTEER job that they do that none of those sorry-ass welfare clowns would ever consider doing..

I will vote for NO candidate who supports cutting our legitimate debt to our veterans and retirees in ANY way.

[Freedom56v2]

Woah, I didn’t even know about some of this stuff. :(

[algernonpj]

Woah, I didn’t even know about some of this stuff. :(

A few months ago, I started a folder 'Where Our Money's Spent'. Every time I read about some outrageous use of our money I put the article in there and add it to the list. This only what I have collected over a few months.

Most people are unaware that illegal aliens, anchor babies, and their extended families cost us $113 billion NET each year based upon a very careful study dome using the outdated number of 13 million illegals.

The real number of illegals is about 3 x that. so illegals cost approx $1/4 to 1/3 Trillion per year.

Low skill immigrant households cost $19,000 NET each year, for each of 4.5 million households.

This is why the last people I'd cut money from are veteran's and seniors. Yet these are the first two mentioned by the political elite.

[Poundstone]

We’ve got to reform military retirement. It’s simply too expensive in it’s current form to be sustained.

[moehoward]

"Not true."

No it's not. But the truth wouldn't twist the lefties knickers.

[Mountain Troll]

“(A recent Federal retiree and proud of it!)”

and yet you call for military retirement to be cut? There’s a word for people who say such things. It isn’t a very nice word, and I won’t repeat it here. But I would very much dislike to have it applied to me. Apparently you have different standards.

[W. W. SMITH]

We’ve got to reform military retirement. It’s simply too expensive in it’s current form to be sustained.

Yes military retirement is so good, european vacations every year, Alaska fishing trips, eat out when ever I want,live in a great house, the nicest clothes...............OH........Wait....That was a day dream. Struggle to make ends meet, no vacations either Europa or Alaska, eat out once or twice a month if lucky, live in a double wide that is falling apart and most of my clothes are two decades old.

Where the hell did you get the idea that military retirement is so lucrative?

[ops33]

The average military retiree is an E-6, some college but not a degree, with 2-3 school age children, trying to re-enter the job market at 40 years of age. Not a very easy thing to do especially for those in the Army and Marines who were in combat arms MOS’s. Armor, artillery, and infantry is the backbone of the military but are not skills that transfer easily to the civilian environment. Change the retirement and how will we every get anyone to spend a career in the military in those MOS’s? Yes, military retirement is expensive but by looking at the quality of our military I would say it is money well spent.

[cva66snipe]

How about complete elimination of all congressional retirement benefits icluding their outragious pay? A perfect idea to encourage term limits.

[gunner03]

>We’ve got to reform military retirement. It’s simply too expensive in it’s current form to be sustained.

Yeah right, right after we reform the handouts to the unions and illegals. Oh, that’s right, they keep these parasites in office, rather than support your freedom. Rudyard Kipling had it right back then, no change now.

[gunner03]

>The average military retiree is an E-6, some college but not a degree, with 2-3 school age children, trying to re-enter the job market at 40 years of age. Not a very easy thing to do especially for those in the Army and Marines who were in combat arms MOS’s. Armor, artillery, and infantry is the backbone of the military but are not skills that transfer easily to the civilian environment. Change the retirement and how will we every get anyone to spend a career in the military in those MOS’s? Yes, military retirement is expensive but by looking at the quality of our military I would say it is money well spent.

Well put

[hattend]

Congress first

Slash their budgets, staff, pensions and bennies first.

[Vernon]

Absolutely...100% The ‘welfare clowns’ should be required to serve someway for the welfare they receive.

[Poundstone]

Sorry, but no matter how deserving our military members may be, the current military retirement system is simply too expensive to be sustainable. Current serving military members shouldn’t be affected by the coming changes, but new entrants will have to understand that things are going to be different — that’s only fair.

[Poundstone]

Don’t be an ignoramus. I served in Afghanistan, among other places. And anyway, my own service doesn’t affect the fact that military retirement bennies are simply unsustainable.

[cva66snipe]

It is affordable as the size of the military is dropping substancially. Since 1998 we have cut over 800,000 active duty troops. Before that you may not be old enough to remember we also lost many more through the Bush sr/Clinton downsizing in the early to mid 1990's. These were troops who had up too 16 or more years vested time in service who got screwed out of their retirement.

Below is the active duty End Troop Strengths for 2004

(1) The Army, 482,400.
(2) The Navy, 373,800.
(3) The Marine Corps, 175,000.
(4) The Air Force, 359,300

Now the 1987 numbers

Army 781,000
Navy 587,000
Marine Corps 199,000
Air Force 607,000

Now add too this the fact the average Lifer unless he is a permenant stateside desk jockey will likely put in nearly twice the total hours per year worked or at least more than a third more hours than civilians for lesser pay. The military retirement system is a bargain. The congressional retirement system is a massive rip off. In my job at sea work days were abut 18-20 hours. It ages you fast.

Carter also had the same bright idea too try and cut military retirement by making it a 30 year required obligation. It never got made policy or if it did it was quickly rescinded by the next CIC.

BTW of those numbers I posted as active duty most of the troops are either junior NCO's or E-3 and below. Most persons joining the military do their first enlistment and get out usually by the end of their second one.

I wasn't a lifer myself. A 6 year sea/2 year shore duty Sea Duty&Shore Duty rotation my job required was one of the many reasons.

I do support the eliminaion of many useless alaphabet agenies who's annual budgets likely exceed the military retirement cost for 20 years though. Let's start with the EPA.

[cva66snipe]

Don’t be an ignoramus. I served in Afghanistan, among other places. And anyway, my own service doesn’t affect the fact that military retirement bennies are simply unsustainable.

Now lets see in just what capacity you served there.

No Proposed Change to Federal Retirement, Pay Systems in Budget Proposal

Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:02:42 PM · 11 of 12 Poundstone to WVKayaker

Nope, I meant ALL Federal employees, civilian and military. Plenty of civilian Feds are serving in Afghanistan (as I did), Iraq, and other dangerous places, sometimes alongside US military members, and sometimes in places where there are NO US military!

If you get killed in the line of duty, you bleed red, bub, regardless of what kind of clothing you’re wearing. Wise up.

Your posting didn't make sense so I checked your posting history. You were a civilian drawing a nice fat government employee check while working in Afghanistan it seems. You also drive a Beamer? Or is it two you have? I don't know any enlisted retirees or active duty for that matter driving Beamers. Actually I know of none who can retire as in no longer have too work and live only on their service retirement. Most Lifers after they retire from the military must go on to civilian jobs because even an 0-5 retired isn't likely drawing close too what you are nor likely as great of benefits.

[MSF BU]

Yes, new entrants will understand, do their time in uniform (many simply as a patriotic chore) and leave well before the ten year mark. The military tried this with the 40% retirement and they had to reverse course because the attrition was so large.