Posted on 01/08/2014 7:42:35 PM PST by SkyPilot
A massive spending bill taking shape on Capitol Hill is likely to repeal a recently enacted pension cut for disabled veterans.
Capitol Hill aides said Wednesday that the $1 trillion-plus omnibus spending bill measure will reverse a 1 percentage point cut to annual cost-of-living increases that was inadvertently applied to more than 63,000 veterans who have left the military due to injury or disability.
But the controversial pension cut included in last month's budget agreement would continue to apply to other military retirees. It would save about $6 billion over the coming decade, money that's being used to ease cuts to the Pentagon budget this year.
The pension cuts have drawn fierce opposition from veterans groups and lawmakers in both parties, but it's unclear whether the entire provision will be repealed. The aides required anonymity because the spending bill isn't complete and they aren't authorized to discuss it publicly.
Some lawmakers originally claimed, incorrectly, that the pension cut in last month's budget bill would not apply to disabled veterans. When they discovered that it did, they immediately promised to correct it. The upcoming budget measure is the first available vehicle.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., recently defended the pension cut in an op-ed in USA Today, saying he stands behind "responsible reforms of military compensation."
Service members are permitted to retire at half pay after 20 years in the military, which means they can claim their pensions as early as age 38, a generous benefit that defenders say helps retain servicemen and women. He says a typical serviceman who retirees at 38 would receive a $1.7 million pension over his lifetime instead of a $1.8 million benefit and that most military retirees go on to second careers.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
It was healthcare for life for free at the VA if you served your term and was honorably discharged. Now it’s means tested.
They are also changing disabled veterans meds majorly, with no warning. Oh by the way, the letters say at the request of the FDA.
The 505/20 75%/30 rule changed for those entering active duty after 9Sep1980.
Yes, I know the correct term is/was ‘Pay Entry Basic Date’, but I’m trying to keep it simple...
that’s 50% /20yr and 75% /30 yr...
My husband’s condition is deteriorating. I looked into getting him into adult daycare, so I can postpone putting him in a nursing home. TriCare Prime doesn’t cover it, and neither does Medicare. If we were on welfare, Medicaid would pay for it. But military retirees who pay for the healthcare they were supposed to get for free don’t qualify for it.
Active Duty/Retiree ping.
Just reading the headline
As Dirty Harry would say, that’s mighty white of them.
But maybe they could just lay off of the vets who will never fight dirty with their own government and who are safe prey, and, instead, focus on means testing those welfare, Medicaid and Medicare recipients. Just in case any one of them might be stealing from the government enough to offset those dear ones who served mighty white if them
But maybe they could lay off the vets
This is not true.
Service members are permitted to be retained at half pay on the retired lists after 20 years in the military. They remain in their respective services and are subject to immediate recall to active duty for which they must be prepared.
Service members do not "retire" as civilians do. They are retained at partial pay and relieved of duties. For those who believe this is just a play on words, just ask those of us who have been recalled. There're plenty around from Korea up to the present.
And just wait and see what happens to these "retirees" when we get sucked into our next full-blown war...say with China in 2025. Of course, most won't wait to be recalled. They'll be jamming the Pentagon's phone lines to be reactivated.
That's why service "retirement" is different. That's why there is "retained" pay. And if Congress and those perfumed princes of the Pentagon didn't have their heads up their collective bums they would be down on its knees thanking service retirees instead of knifing them in the back!
Any cuts or reductions to those who served is not acceptable...What is reasonable is for entire government programs, government departments and foreign aid to be shutdown/reduced before that ever happens.
Yeah. I think there should be an end to pensions for members of congress. They don’t need it. They don’t need health insurance either. They can afford to insure themselves. Congressional salaries are pretty high as I understand. Maybe then they wouldn’t make a career of it. Get the hell out of congress after one or two terms. As for the vets, this stinks. A promise is a promise. A real sucker punch. Bastards.
Paul Ryan is dead to me. He will be forever associated with this betrayal. Had to know what he was doing and should be called out about it.
I beg to differ with you on the year of 1986 I retired in 1987 @50% for 20 years and it was 75% for 30 years. I do not know when it changed but know for a fact that it wasn’t 1986.
Having said that, this is not the issue. The government made a contract with us (all of us retirees). We lived up to our part of that contract with significant sacrifice. We are owed.
I will repeat what I've said before on this topic:
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):
- 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)
- 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")
- 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.
No, back in the old days it was free healthcare for yourself and your immediate family at military facilities. My late father retired from the Marines when I was 5 years old and all my medical treatment was at a nearby Air Force base, as was the rest of my family’s until I went into the service myself and there was no out-of-pocket for any of it.
To my knowledge, it still is. It's always been on a space-available basis. The trick is, since the time of the Clintons and the institution of Tricare (replacing "CHAMPUS"), the military treatment facilities give a higher priority to participants in "TRICARE PRIME".
The big difference between now and the old days is that dependents and retirees cannot get dental care (except for emergencies) stateside. I think dependents can still get dental care overseas...not sure about retirees.
I’m 80% and I don’t get dental.
That's what I was saying. Even active duty dependents don't get dental on-base/post stateside. Active duty dependents get on-base/post dental overseas only (or at least did up to when I retired in 2002).
They're dreaming. The typical retiree has to be at an average E-7 pay grade. That is about $21,000 a year. Add 10,000 for medical benefits and you get a misrepresented $31,000 a year due to adding medical benefits to it. (For example, I didn't spend a dime of their money on medical last year, and might have spent $500 since retiring 10 years ago.) At 38, they're assuming someone went into the military at 18 years old. That's simply not true. I'd say the average age is more like 21 after trying other things and having them not satisfy, and then the typical retiree becomes a serious-minded soldier.
With an average life span of 78 or so for a male, the most common gender, we'd say that the 41 year old retiree draws benefits for 37 years. 37*31,000 = 1,147,000 dollars. The only way they can come up with that 1.7 million dollar pension is by using future values on that dollar. IOW, 1,147,000 today is probably 1.7 million in future value. And, using the government's average retiree cola for the last few years at about 1%, that is exactly what the future value is 37 years from now. So, Ryan lies again. He subtly shifts to future value and doesn't reveal it AND he adds medical care to the pension without revealing it. And medical cost is determined by individual since the government is funding it. If they pay no money out, then they have had no cost. My medical care, for example, has cost them on average $50 a year since I retired and not 10,000. How healthy is our military since the 1980's? Extremely. Highly, extremely discouraged smoking and alcohol consumption, and required, highly encouraged physical exercise and weight control. These folks exit the military on average in great physical shape with some ingrained good health habits.
Just amazing to me. Two decades of being in most places other than home, standing watch on Christmas in various forgein countries and living through the anxiety of hostile action in some of the worlds worst shitholes, and it comes to this.
Now, just a few years after I served our country with distinction, beleiving the work I was doing had some significance, it turns out that the majority of our congress, senate and our ridiculous excuse for a president have come to the conclusion that I’m the problem. Me and all my military brothers and sisters are the leeches on society that must be put in check. We’re just greedy scammers that gamed the system for a fat benefits package stolen from the taxpayers of this country.
Knowing that the screwing has just begun, perhaps I could swap the money for another chance to make it to my daughter’s school play? How about her birthday? Prom? Can I have it all back, please? I can see now that the smart money was with those who stuck around my small town, pumped out a half dozen kids and became welfare kings and queens. It’s funny, those same people told me how dumb I was for signing up for the military. I thought they were losers and slackers. I was wrong.
As a nation, we go to great lengths to normalize “those in need” No more do they have to pull food stamps out of a little book in front of a crowd of shoppers, or cash an AFDC check at the local bank. No. That’s beneath them, and would hurt their self immage. We look at them, and those collecting thier 99th week of unemployment as honorable victims of a harsh society. But, when it comes to us military retirees, well, nothing compares to our low- down attempt to swindle the American public.
In a few years, I bet they take it all. What the hell can we do about it? Voting is worthless. Both sides just take turns twisting the knife. As another poster said, I’d be more than happy to take a cut if it was an across the board solution, involving all government expenditures. But that’s not going to happen. Not only will only the military retirees see a direct reduction in real pension, but the goverment will go right on burying my kids in future debt.
We’re a disgrace as a nation.
You can be sure Paul Ryan (or probably Mitt Romney if he were in power) wouldn’t cut welfare or cell phones.
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.