Posted on 12/28/2013 5:50:47 AM PST by SkyPilot
As someone who is constantly researching retirement, I find the recent funding cuts to military retirees very disheartening. Worse yet, I see this as a move to establish ground zero for the testing of changes to Social Security benefits.
On Wednesday, the Senate passed a bipartisan budget that scales back cost of living adjustments for working age military retirees starting in 2015. Several sources including Military.com suggests that qualified participants could lose between $3,700 and $6,200 per year, or an aggregate between $83,000 and $124,000 before they retire based on rank, age and years of service.
Despite some protests, a few web articles, and assorted angry Facebook posts from former military personnel, it’s pretty much a done deal. The message seems clear: if you’re young (under the age of 62) and capable there will be no perks for you.
Whether you support the decision or not, the rapid process by which these benefits were stripped and seemingly limited public and media anger, may just be setting the stage for related actions within the Social Security program. It’s well documented that the Social Security fund is set to go bust by 2033, with some experts suggesting it could happen sooner. Whether it’s ten, fifteen or even twenty years away, that insolvency date needs to change for the system to survive, and the logical and now accepted way to do it is on the backs of those who can, and already are paying into the system.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“Offshoring our industrial base to China and the turd world IS NOT a way to do it.”
Absolute agreement on your point.
It’s the Fall of the Roman Empire all over again.
Cut the military, grow the Bread and Circus.
It’s ‘interesting’ to be present and see it happening. I always had the impression that the Romans didn’t know what they were doing then but it’s obvious that like us they knew and couldn’t stop themselves. The maintenance of the establishment is conflated with the maintenance of the state by the leaders and the populace is glued in front of their establishment subsidized TVs eating their SNAP-bought cookies and drinking their SNAP-bought sodas.
Yeah, I’m old enough and have seen it coming so long it’s merely ‘interesting’ to me.
Tell me that your post (3) was not real. I can not believe that there are really people that heartless.
Gee I don’t know gold, maybe we can look into the tons of fraud and abuse? I think that would be a great start.
I find myself having a strong reaction to your post, and yet I’m on my way for the day and can’t write out my retort to your gross over simplification of these matters.
“Thank GOD for Paul Ryan”
Yeah, if you think the US is so ainful and corrupt it should be destroyed and the lssons from it’s failure be impressed aupon the rest of the world then he is truly doing God’s work.
I don’t take that view but it is certainly valid.
Who is more deserving of a pension.....a military retiree or the run of the mill government employee who not only risks nothing but receives a much larger pension than a veteran in the equivocal position!!!
******
Separate issue! I’d like to see all government-worker pensions scaled back and have all employees paid by taxpayers have to provide for their own retirement in much larger amounts than is currently allowed. Why shouldn’t they have to put their own money into IRAs, etc?
I always say a prayer for all miltary folks, disabled or not. For I are one of those disabled ones.
No, it seems real.
meanwhile $1.5 billion goes to Somalia
lolz
Acitve Duty/Retiree Ping.
If America is not vibrant, growing, and innovative, there is no money for benefits, or increased benefits for anyone, I don’t care who you are or why you think you deserve a government check.
*************
If America has no defenders willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, nothing else will matter. We will not even have a country. While odious, an encroaching government is a secondary consideration to the threat of an encroaching adversary who would rob us of our freedom and prosperity.
As a veteran perhaps my view is biased, but many vets and their families have paid an extremely high price to defend this nation. They deserve our gratitude.
I was at a veterans cemetary just today. It is a humbling experience.
 |
 |
 America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi! |
 |
 |
That is nonsense! It’s an entire system, with many parts that make up the whole. The nation is blessed, praise God, but all the spending is not the PRIMARY reason.
There are other nations that spend more, per service member, than the United States, and still other countries that require their citizens to give them a great deal more in taxes, for a host of reasons. Does that mean their lives and lifestyle are/is better than ours?
Still, our military got as good as it is not from dollars, but from people; sergeants, petty officers, captains, majors, commanders especially.
You may disagree, but then it would be very minority opinion.
“If America has no defenders willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, nothing else will matter. We will not even have a country.”
According to some on this thread, they are only doing it for the money and benefits anyway.
That’s not why I served.
Still, without a vibrant, prosperous private sector, there is no military. It’s not the other way around, and never has been in the history of this country.
“You may disagree, but then it would be very minority opinion.”
A vibrant private sector composed of free citizens paying taxes to a government that performs limited Constitutionally mandated duties is our model.
I don’t disagree with that at all.
However, it is a rather loftier topic than whether the government should short-change the military retirees’ pension COLAs.
We could just as well argue whether or not we should have a military presence in other countries, an aggressive foreign policy, whether or not we are nation building overseas and whether that’s a good idea and a thousand other points...
I have opinions on all of them (mostly, don’t do it)...
But THAT would be a complete side-track of the original poster’s article.
How long did you serve?
There is no dishonor in serving one enlistment of four years and then returning to civilian life. Most who serve do just that. And, in fact, there is great honor in that.
But how can someone enlist for 20 years?
Answer: They can't!
The duty of the retention NCO or officer is to convince the best and brightest to reenlist. Sometimes it takes monetary motivators, because those who earn skills in the military are often highly sought by civilian concerns and it is a hard decision to accept the losses financially, compared to one's peers, for love of country and service.
The monetary motivators are NEVER as much as one could make as a civilian, but are designed to make things a little better than without them.
Among the monetary motivators are 1/2 base pay after 20 years (3/4's after 30) retirement, commissaries and exchanges without state taxes, free medical for life, various on base recreation facilities and products, and, of course reenlistment bonuses of up to a years worth of pay (and that varies extensively by job skill (MOS/Rating/AFSC) and other factors).
Military retirement fills the purpose of retaining people beyond four years, when they're still young, strong and quick, and letting them go before age and injury makes them more expensive to keep than let go. Since we do not have a draft, and have never drafted for more than 10 years, retirement becomes one of those things that makes the pot just sweet enough to stay and drink from.
So there you have it. The question Congress and the DoD needs to be asked is do they no longer think that retention is an issue? Because the whole purpose of all these incentives, from retirement to bonuses, comes down to retention. But the decision Ryan made is only focusing on the cost aspect of retirement, not the reason DoD has it--which is to retain people. If the answer is no, we don't need to retain people, they can save even more by cutting some or all of those monetary motivators above. And now they've done so.
However, if enough people who would be inclined to reenlist do not, and instead cannot face the relative financial loses imposed by a military career and subsequent more opportunities to die or be wounded (I have several friends who are on their 3rd and 4th tour in Afghanistan who have also served in 1 or 2 tours in Iraq) they get out when their enlistment ends.
And we've already established that there is nothing wrong or dishonorable in doing so. Still, once again, I bring us back to the point of retention--is it good to retain quality people, and if so, what motivators is the nation willing to provide?
I served during the so-called Terrible 70s, when the US military was suffering due to the inception of the All Volunteer force but no planned-out incentives to retain people. People (some) looked down on the military, so soon after Vietnam. It was a sieve. If we had gone to war with the Soviets during those days, I'm think we would have still won, but a lot more would have to die to achieve that victory, compared to the much more capable military of today. The price of that would have been much more than throwing the few bones the retention program came up with. The country can't have its cake and eat it to. Everything has a cost.
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.
