Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul Ryan vs. the Military
American Thinker ^ | 1/7/2014 | Elise Cooper

Posted on 01/07/2014 2:38:00 AM PST by markomalley

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) have wrongly and outrageously cut the budget on the backs of the U.S. military. On December 26 President Obama signed a new bipartisan bill that includes a $6 billion cut from military members' retirement. These cuts to COLA (cost-of-living adjustments) also affect medically retired veterans, including those wounded in combat. American Thinker interviewed those who are directly affected.

Amongst Congress and the president there is always the talk of how those serving, past and present need to be admired for their sacrifices. Michael Hall, a former Ranger Command Sergeant Major who served thirty-four years, felt that on December 26th President Obama could have "done the right thing" by refusing to sign the bill unless this provision was taken out. He lost a chance to be the supportive commander-in-chief, missing an opportunity to be the hero and protector to those who have served in the military.

Paul Ryan still insists that the cuts are necessary because military compensation growth is out of hand. With this new budget he obviously did not throw grandma off the cliff, but instead has thrown those in the military. The former and current defenders of America were transformed into sacrificial lambs in an attempt to make Republicans more appealing to the left. Ryan did not balance the budget, pay off the debt, or reform entitlements. Instead he, along with Senator Murray, broke a promise when they changed the contract signed by having the annual cost-of-living adjustments cut by one percent for military retirees 62 or younger.

Iraqi and Afghanistan veteran Pete Hegseth is surprised that it was as much Paul Ryan's idea as Patty Murray. "I felt he should have known better…

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
I recognize that there is a pretty bad fiscal situation and as a retiree myself, I am more than willing to do my part if (and the following list is IN ORDER):
  1. AFTER they cut out the extra-Constitutional activities performed by FEDGOV (i.e., those activities that are not explicitly identified in Article 1 Section 8 and the various Constitutional Amendments) (BTW, since transfer payments are extra-constitutional, this statement includes those transfer payments)
  2. AFTER Congress has eliminated their own cushy retirement (not that it fiscally does that much, but it would make them appear to "lead from the front")
  3. AFTER Congress eliminates all pensions and TSP matching funds from current civilian government employees (the rationale being that they were not under the UCMJ and have always had the option to disobey idiots and turn down assignments w/o risk of court-martial)

If they do all the above IN ORDER (in other words, they do #1...and if that isn't sufficient, move to #2, and if that doesn't work, then finally do #3), I would be willing to consider consenting to some sacrifice.

But not until that point. I am not at all sanguine to having to give anything up from my retirement (nor am I willing to give anything up as far as current / retired military benefits for the troops) as long as free money is provided to illegal aliens, foreign dictators, or the lazy who choose not to work.

1 posted on 01/07/2014 2:38:00 AM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Please send it to Ryanowski.

2 posted on 01/07/2014 3:20:57 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

Amazing how politicians are so free and eager when spending other peoples money, or cutting their EARNED benefits.

Most politicians have never held real jobs that would have earned them what they so freely and eagerly take from those who did.

3 posted on 01/07/2014 4:07:17 AM PST by Progov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

There will be more outrages to come with bipartisan deal making in Washington.

The Dems are pretending they want to bring back the extended unemployment benefits in the budget deal most of them voted for and Obama signed in the first place.

The deep debt problem is being dealt with in the US just like it has been in Europe with “austerity measures” imposed by the major parties of the “Left” and “Right” in places like Italy and Greece.

What we see in this “bipartisan” budget deal is the shape of things to come.

More tax increases and cuts like we saw in this deal are coming.....

4 posted on 01/07/2014 5:36:38 AM PST by Nextrush (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT=HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY BAILOUT ACT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Some one must have got to Ryan. He is now a koolaid drinker

5 posted on 01/07/2014 5:38:39 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
"He is now a koolaid drinker"

The gopers said we had to get on board w/ the new budget because it represented the best deal we could get, but most of us recognized from the beginning that it was a liar's budget put together by liars.

The coming battle over Unemployment extensions will fully demostrate, after the inevitable goper collapse, just what a POS we were sold.

Put ryan, mcconnel and bohner in the same liars pen as obama-there is no difference.

But then again, in the current culture being a liar is a mark of sophistication.

6 posted on 01/07/2014 5:55:49 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Progov

That’s because the American people make such poor choices in choosing officials: they don’t require politicians to have a real-life record.

7 posted on 01/07/2014 6:27:08 AM PST by Theodore R. (People in TX in 2014: Cornball and George P.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

Way to get Dem votes for 2016 Paul. You will need them.

8 posted on 01/07/2014 9:50:50 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Part of the problem is combat vets / combat arms service-members have the same bennies as CONUS REMFs who can enjoy a pretty cushy lifestyle.

I’m a vet with 10+ years of service and when I was mobilized (twice) I made bank because the service gives everyone a “housing allowance” and “food allowance” while in civvie world you have make those expenses out of one’s “basic pay”.

I think a good start would be to start retirement benefits for non-combat vets/arms non-wounded retirees at age 65, just like the rest of the country.

9 posted on 01/07/2014 11:26:13 AM PST by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
That’s because the American people make such poor choices in choosing officials: they don’t require politicians to have a real-life record.

Nor do they require politicians to have a military record.

(They should...Mister Ryan doesn't.)


10 posted on 01/07/2014 2:57:19 PM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"Congressman Ryan, who has never served in the military, tries to spin this provision by explaining, "all this reform does is make a small adjustment for those younger retirees." Not true, says those who were interviewed...Retired Colonel Jack Jacobs is utterly frustrated since he believes that in the big scheme of things $6 billion is not a lot of money. "This basically has no overall fiscal effect on the budget; yet, has a negative effect on the people that served. The politicians have no interest in saving money regarding their districts because that affects them personally. There are a lot of other places it can be saved including getting rid of a lot of the waste in government. No one should be persuaded by those people who say the reductions are not a lot of money."

Ryan also stated in an op-ed that these "younger military retirees [in their] late 30s and early 40s [in their] are prime working years, and most of these younger retirees go on to second careers." A current Army Master Sergeant who has served over twenty-four years, vehemently disagrees. "Many of the soldiers who retire do not have a skill. There are also those who have health issues, such as PTSD, back and knee problems, which put limitations on the type of job they can find. Unemployment is still high so jobs are not readily available. I am fifty and if I retire I will have to fight age discrimination, making it harder to find a job. This means for twelve years I will have to suffer with lower pay. I ask Mr. Ryan how many of those retirees will be able to find a job? This bill was a slap in the face."

Ryan is acting like a Socialist, his argument is retired military (even the disabled and widows) don't "need that money" anyway, so screw them.

Hagel is scheming to take as much pay, retirement, and health care away from military and retirees as possible.

Boehner is too drunk to even care about fixing this, McConnell never did care, and the Democrats are focused on giving away $25 Billion in "free" checks to the layabout unemployed for 99 weeks. Liberals are cheering the screwing of our military, and are amazed at how the Republicans have betrayed a base that has loyally supported them (military, veterans, and military families). I don't know where this will end up, but this injustice must be turned around.

11 posted on 01/08/2014 2:44:02 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; xzins; 2ndDivisionVet; blueunicorn; cva66snipe; dsc; Mr Rogers; Colonel_Flagg


12 posted on 01/08/2014 2:45:53 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Where's Ryan and other Congresscritters pay cuts at? Why do we need a Congressional Retirement Program? Walking upright now huh pigs? Looks like Ryan has sold out to be in the RINO Club.

Very few in congress give a Tinker D any more for our troops. But THEIR own precious pay, retirement for even one stinking term, and their precious staff, all have plenty. Remember Debbie Whatshername Schultz arrogant stunt of asking for donations for her staff? Poor Babies had to eat at {gasp} low rate fast food places like peasants.

13 posted on 01/08/2014 4:51:40 PM PST by cva66snipe ((Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; blueyon; KitJ; T Minus Four; xzins; CMS; The Sailor; ab01; txradioguy; Jet Jaguar; ...

Active Duty/Retiree ping.

14 posted on 01/08/2014 5:59:10 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
Topics · Post Article

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