Lawmakers vow to reverse military pension cuts ("OOPS" Alert)

House and Senate leaders face a dilemma when they return in January amid a bipartisan backlash over cuts to military pensions.

Lawmakers from both parties are demanding the quick repeal of military retirement cuts included in last month’s budget two-year budget deal.

A flurry of bills have been introduced in both chambers to remove the $6 billion cut to the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for working-age military retirees, and service and veterans organizations plan a major lobbying push when Congress returns.

But the military pension cut was one of many intertwined elements of the budget agreement struck between Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who chair their chambers’ Budget panels.

Reducing military pensions was a key part of the deal that also reduces pensions for civilian federal workers. The agreement, which was quickly passed in both the House and Senate in December, replaced $63 billion in automatic spending cuts known as the sequester in 2014 and 2015, while reducing long-term deficits by a total of $85 billion.

So far House and Senate leaders have not indicated they will bring up any of the bills that would fix the military pension cuts. Leadership offices did not respond to requests for comment on taking up military benefits legislation in 2014.

Ryan and Murray have agreed to make one change to the law: reversing pension cuts for service members retired for medical reasons. They say medically retired veterans were included in the agreement due to a technical error.

But in a sign that House leadership may resist legislation to remove the military retirement cuts from the deal, Ryan wrote an op-ed before Christmas defending the overall pension cuts.

“For me, there's simply no choice between responsible reforms of military compensation and making what our military leadership has called ‘disproportionate cuts to military readiness and modernization,’ Ryan said.

Whether or not any military pension bills get votes on the floor, the retirement benefits fight is poised to be one of the fiercest battles in Congress in the first months of 2014, with vocal lawmakers from both parties flanked by veterans groups and demanding action.

The issue could be politically volatile in 2014 as well, particularly for lawmakers who oppose the COLA cut but still voted for the budget deal.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who is up for reelection this year, was criticized over the retirement benefits by the New Hampshire Republican Party after she voted for the budget agreement, even though she also introduced legislation that would repeal the cuts.

The pension cuts battle is one part of a brewing war over military compensation costs as the Pentagon grapples with budget pressures under sequestration.

Both sides see the fight over the military retirement benefits as a test case to gauge how politically difficult it will be to make future changes to pensions and other benefits like military healthcare.

That has sparked a full-court press from service and veterans organizations to reverse the military retirement reductions.

“There’s no doubt that this is a little bit of a weather vane, a litmus test as to what the veterans and military communities’ tolerance is going to be for this, and what types of cuts we’re going to be willing to tolerate and what types of cuts we're going to fight on,” said Alex Nicholson, legislative director for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).

Budget hawks say military pay and benefits threaten to overrun the defense budget and eat up a bigger piece of the mandatory spending pie as costs have skyrocketed over the past decade.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has endorsed compensation reform, and Pentagon leaders backed the budget deal despite the reduction in benefits for military retirees.

Supporters of compensation reform argue that the budget agreement makes a small adjustment to military pensions, reducing the COLA by 1 percent below inflation until retirees reach age 62.

Ryan, for instance, cites statistics that show a Sergeant First Class who retires at 38 would still receive $1.7 million in pension benefits over a lifetime with the cuts, rather than $1.8 million.

Opponents paint a different picture. They say the same Sergeant First Class who retires at 42 loses $72,000 in retirement pay because of the cuts, the equivalent of three years worth of benefits.

Service and veterans groups say that the decision to target retirees and current service members — rather than changing benefits only for new enlistees — is breaking a promise made to those who serve.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who voted against the budget deal over the retirement cuts, says he is open to considering compensation reform, but he argued the quickly passed budget agreement was the wrong approach to changing benefits.

“Reform will come one day, but it sure as hell won’t come this way,” Graham said last month.

The military pension cuts do not take full effect until 2016, leaving plenty of time for changes to be made to the law. Supporters and opponents of compensation reform are eying a congressionally mandated panel that is studying all aspects of military compensation, and is due to report its findings in May.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), a key Senate voice on military issues, has also said his committee will review the COLA changes in the budget deal early next year.

I’d have no problem if this “solution” to our debt crisis became effective for the first recruit that walked in after passage. He could then make an informed decision about whether to join or stay for a career. But this ex post facto trap shows a real lack of good faith toward people who made career decisions thinking promises mean something, which they clearly do not to politicians. A pox on both houses if they don’t turn this around.
TC

I agree. The new recruits being under this new rule would be ok with me. However, all this drama over this was ridiculous. I KNEW it was never going to be implemented in the first place. People just like to complain and be worried for nothing. It was kind of embarrassing to see the Veterans react in that way. I am under this new law and I was not concerned a bit. I even expressed my views on that on FR and of course of bashed by the “sky is falling” crowd.

Both sides a re running scared after getting back to their districts.

The simple truth this was known publicly for two days before the House voted on it and then after that passage, a fix amendment was not allowed to see the Senate by you know who.

So now with all of this consternation by those who refused to fix it when they could, now we get this pile of political crap because no one in their right mind will see a way that the Senate will ever take it up.

VOTE ALL THE SMARMY BASSSTURDS OUT WHO VOTED FOR IT. EVERY LAST FRIGGIN ONE OF THEM!

Paul Ryan: responsible reforms of military compensation

The nation is awash in economic foolishness. One would think the veteran's retirement plan was put together by died in the wool socialists and labor unions, similar to teacher and congressional retirements.

But no.

The Veteran Retirement today began generations ago. It began when the nation was simply asking, "What is fair compensation for the hardships, separations, and risks of a military career?" It has continued over the years uninterrupted, unquestioned, and supported by the nation and its leaders.

It was NEVER considered "out of line" and in need of reform until America began ruining its own financial house.

The dangers haven't changed, the hardships haven't changed, and now, in the middle of combat operations that have been ongoing for over 2 decades, crony social corporatist politicians who've run the nation into the ground with welfare entitlements and grossly burgeoning debt think the retirement that has weathered generations is the culprit??? And they think injuring veterans who've borne the heat of battle is the answer in the middle of war.

These people aren't just liars, they're corrupt. That is the only possible explanation.

Do you really think that they’d be considering the ‘fix’ if everyone hadn’t had a fit? This is the trial balloon to see what we’ll tolerate.

Check out the plans for TriCare:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44900

You totally miss the point. You should be worried because this little stunt by Ryan shows the GOP is happy to throw the middle class under the bus to get a deal with the Dems. Did the Dems cut obamaphones for their supporters? No. Did the GOP agree to cuts for their supporters. Yes.

That they will now do a deficit spending side deal to “fix” this is irrelevant. We have seen what the GOP is made of. BOHICA.

“Ryan and Murray have agreed to make one change to the law: reversing pension cuts for service members retired for medical reasons. They say medically retired veterans were included in the agreement due to a technical error.”......

“Technical error” my behind. Lying bastards!

However, all this drama over this was ridiculous. I KNEW it was never going to be implemented in the first place. People just like to complain and be worried for nothing. It was kind of embarrassing to see the Veterans react in that way.

Bravo Sierra!

Had there not been “drama” they would have pushed it through. Every now and then our “representatives” in DC see what they can get away with. Ever watch them on the gun control issue?

And don’t forget, a couple of Republican Senators tried to get the Illegal Immigrant earned income credit refund fraud stopped in lieu of our Vet taking the hit; but good ole Harry refused to bring it to the floor for discussion. Illegal Immigrant votes more important then our vets.

Totally agree- this was so stupid on GOP to do this -— see how media is spinning it? GOP going after Vets....why even play with this fire when it only ends up burning the GOP every time.....

Mark my words, this will be an election conversation GOP wanted to cut Vets out of their pay, no mention of the Dem supporters”....

Don’t get me wrong but there are only about two handfuls of those critters in both houses that are worth a crap. Some newbies in the House are still open for consideration but one, Ron DeSantis looks to be getting a spot on my list of good guys. Ander Crenshaw was one who voted for it and defends his vote on the subsequent weekly update.

Do you really think that they’d be considering the ‘fix’ if everyone hadn’t had a fit? This is the trial balloon to see what we’ll tolerate.

This reminds me of way back in the ‘90s when Gore lost but the Democrats kept recounting in Florida. At one point they tried to lock out the media.

A citizens’ group started “drama” and acted in a “kind of embarassing” way and shouted for them to let the press report live.

It’s bad now; but, imagine if Gore had been allowed to steal office? How would a progressive/communist administration react to 9-11?

Naps, I think Castro would have found you to be a model citizen.

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.