Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No more 20-year rule? DOD panel calls for radical retirement overhaul (destruction continues)
Stars & Stripes ^ | 7/25/11

Posted on 07/26/2011 2:40:00 AM PDT by markomalley

A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system that has defined military careers for generations, the Military Times newspapers reported.

The plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.

The move would save the Pentagon money -- at a time when it's being asked to cut at least $400 billion -- and benefit troops who leave with less than 20 years of service.

The yearly contributions might amount to about 16.5 percent of a member’s annual pay and would be deposited into a mandatory version of the Thrift Savings Plan, the military’s existing 401(k)-style account that now does not include government matching contributions, according to the Times.

Proponents said the plan would allow more flexibility for servicemembers, who could decide how they want to invest their retirement savings, and for the military, which would be allowed to offer higher contributions to troops who deploy frequently or take hardship assignments.

The Military Times has more on the proposed overhaul, including a summary of how servicemembers would be affected, depending on their length of service.


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last
I don't know about anybody else, but there's no way I would have stayed in 20 if the retirement system didn't exist.

This will demolish the NCO corps.

1 posted on 07/26/2011 2:40:02 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I think this is another part of the “progressives’” plan to destroy the U.S.A.


2 posted on 07/26/2011 2:43:33 AM PDT by plsjr (<>< ... HIS will be done! (http://NewSpring.cc/webservice - Biblical Nourishment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Yep. Remember the effect that was felt under Clinton and his 40% retirement change? This will be even more destructive.


3 posted on 07/26/2011 2:45:50 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"This will demolish the NCO corps."

So true....anyone that has served knows w/o a doubt the E6's, 7'S and 8's actually do all the work to make the military function w/ regards to paperwork / supervision.

Take them away = cluster f. 6-8 is the 'working chain of command'.

4 posted on 07/26/2011 2:51:07 AM PDT by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Big dittos on your reply.

I only stuck it out 21 years because of the 50 at 20 retirement and “free health care for life.”


5 posted on 07/26/2011 2:51:35 AM PDT by PeteB570
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I agree completely. The crap that the military has to take at the personal and family level is like no other career. Moving every three years whether he or she wants to or not, having no choice who he or she works for, forced to swallow one’s pride when his or her superior is full of it and the list goes on and on. Pressure placed on the individual from his job and his supervisor then expected to salute and carry on.

Nope I would not even enlist under those circumstances and what I know now. Congress and the government only appreciates the military when it is politically expedient to do so. What was that poem by Kipling - Tommy!


6 posted on 07/26/2011 3:05:04 AM PDT by inthaihill (Living in an interesting paradise - Thailand!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I'm not sure the plan eliminates the 20-year retirement. I gotta say I like the concept of owning my own retirement. Even now, I'd probably prefer a lump sum payout (based on life expectancy) rather than a percent of basic pay for years served that the government is trying real hard to inflate away. Let me have a payout to invest as I please and pass to my heirs, and they can stop the monthly checks.
7 posted on 07/26/2011 3:08:26 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Good, OTOH, is work. It takes discipline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I hope to hell this is just a trial balloon. This won’t just destroy the NCO corps. It will hit the regular officer corps just as hard, especially at the O4-05 level.

Career means career. These men and women have to think about their future, and if they’re not building towards a reasonable pension, why the heck would they stay around and put up with the nonsense that goes with military service at NCO and field grade levels?


8 posted on 07/26/2011 3:11:18 AM PDT by Ronin (Obamanation has replaced Bizarroworld as the most twisted place in the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I’m with you. I would have bailed at 14 when I was ordered to DC.


9 posted on 07/26/2011 3:14:46 AM PDT by tgusa (Gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger....../)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Big mistake.

The military is already being transformed into a welfare alternative, radical leftist, halfway house for gays, she-males, Obama-bots and REMF bed-wetters.

It will eventually become just another federal government plantation.

As it is, serious people will already be leaving the military in droves when the gay infestation begins in ernest. Changing the retirement will accelerate that.


10 posted on 07/26/2011 3:21:28 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The more effeminate & debauched the people, the more they are fitted for a tyrannical government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks markomalley.
The plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops' retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension
No problem, we'll just hire illegal immigrants and reformed jihadists to build our field armies. /s


11 posted on 07/26/2011 3:24:12 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Yes, as a matter of fact, it is that time again -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tgusa

Not saying this plan is good. There are many unanswered questions, like how much in matching funds. However, it sounds like you’d have an actual retirement account that you’d own. In other words, you could walk at the end of any term of service with whatever had been saved at that point. You could conceivably leave with MORE money at the 20 year point.


12 posted on 07/26/2011 3:37:35 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Good, OTOH, is work. It takes discipline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

“You could conceivably leave with MORE money at the 20 year point.”

And if the stock market tanks when PFC Snuffy is about to leave with his “nest egg? No way to sugarcoat this. Its a terrible idea.


13 posted on 07/26/2011 3:44:26 AM PDT by KantianBurke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Here’s the deal....by fifteen years...you might have built up a nice tidy TSP account and just walk out the door. You could go on and continue working via various jobs and your TSP would likely bulk up by age 55 to 60...and be worth something. When I retired in 1999, I would suggest that one out of four NCOs would have preferred to quit between the 12th and 15th year. I would agree that the overhaul might have more positive situations than negatives.


14 posted on 07/26/2011 3:45:01 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
As I recall, the current 20 year retirement system was designed to correct critical problems.

Prior to WWII, you served until you did not reenlist or resigned your commission or you died. There was no “up or out,” in which you had to advance in rank in order to be retained. It resulted in moribund ranks with 40 year old E-3s and white haired O-4s with no chance of advancement clogging up the billets. It was why senile Admirals had to die before LTs could be promoted.

The 20 year retirement helped correct this. Very few have what it takes to become an E-9 or a flag officer. With a 20 year retirement, the ranks are cleared of those who have no chance at high rank, it keeps the military young, vigorous, and offers opportunity to people of superior talent.

I'm not saying the new proposal will or will not be in the best interest of maintaining the best military in history, for the details are not clear. I'm saying it should not be judged strictly on the basis of cost.

15 posted on 07/26/2011 3:47:04 AM PDT by Jacquerie (I know for certain the Constitution means what it says.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
This will demolish the NCO corps.

I kind of think this is the whole point.

It's what Obama's minions want to do - destroy our military from within.

16 posted on 07/26/2011 3:53:35 AM PDT by airborne (Paratroopers! Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Indeed ... the military retirement system is not same-same as civilian ... retention in the military is a far different kettle of fish than in civilian life. Of course, wrecking the economy does incentivize folks to stay in longer.


17 posted on 07/26/2011 3:58:45 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (From her lips to the voters' ears: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "We own the economy" June 15, 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

It’s amazing. Every 10-15 years the bean counters come out and seriously screw the system up. It’s all about the cash and never about whether it’s a good idea; whether it will help or hurt; whether it will demoralize the troops and cause folks to bail.

I retired as an E-8. I would have stayed longer but they decided to outsource my base Support Group. I wasn’t prepared to PCS a 12th time in my 22 years served. They really expected all 3Cs to be in Combat Comms for 20 years!? Like that wouldn’t hurt retention?

But it was all about the money. WHICH they never saved anyway. They just moved it out of O&M into contracts. Base support costs them MORE now.


18 posted on 07/26/2011 4:02:53 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I dunno, it seems to me that the “cliff” retirement system does generate a lot of perverse incentives. What do you do with a passed over major (O-4) with 16 years service? Under the current system, the guy gets royally shafted. I remember an E-5 in my battalion with 18 years and the battalion commander would not let him re-enlist to finish his 20.

The current system encourages guys to linger long after they would otherwise have left and discourages weeding out losers because of perceived (and actual) unfairness.

Currently the population is divided between first termers and lifers. You have few people who are happy for now and might decide to try something else in a few years.

I didn’t think the cliff retirement system made sense 35 years ago and I don’t think it makes sense today. As far as a money saving option, it seems to me that the conversion is front loaded with costs to the Government today and savings in the distant future. Apparently, it would not apply to anyone currently near retirement.


19 posted on 07/26/2011 4:03:59 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inthaihill

Move every three but spend two of those in Afghanistan or Iraq.


20 posted on 07/26/2011 4:07:17 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
As it is, serious people will already be leaving the military in droves when the gay infestation begins in ernest. Changing the retirement will accelerate that.

According to an article I read in the Navy Times several months ago, 2011 will have the most retirements of officers from all branches of the military since the beginning of the Nation's military.

The reason {main} they give is that officers don't want to referee the crap that they know is coming with the queers are legal law that the zero got passed.

This halfrican has done more to harm the USA in more ways than hitler, stalin and mao combined ever did.

He should be tried for treason, and when found guilty, have the sentence executed.

The volunteer line would be miles in length.

21 posted on 07/26/2011 4:08:04 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

If the program is similar to TSP, the individual chooses where to invest their money. If PFC Snuffy blows it all on a high risk fund, that’s his choice to make. He could just as easily invest his retirement in bonds. Of course, that may not be as safe as once thought given the direction our government is going.


22 posted on 07/26/2011 4:11:52 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Good, OTOH, is work. It takes discipline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
If it is good for the goose it is good for the gander...

Then give this 401k / TSP to Congress, the POTUS and every other "GS" pencil pusher in Washington DC and eliminate all the Traditional Pensions.

Especially for the Congress and Senate....

23 posted on 07/26/2011 4:14:43 AM PDT by taildragger (( Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

The TSP system limits you as to what you can invest. There are only a few plans one can park their money in. With the exception of the “G” fund, everyone lost in 08 and 09. You think that sort of program is going to keep people in for 20 years?


24 posted on 07/26/2011 4:15:03 AM PDT by KantianBurke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

BTW, TSP lets the recipient choose between monthly payouts, a lump sum payment, or an annuity. You sound like the folks who are opposed to changing Social Security for the same reason. I’d love to opt out of Social Security, but my fellow citizens won’t let me, supposedly for my own good. Is it really better to limit everyone’s choices because a some individuals are irresponsible? Let PFC Snuffy pay the price for his own idiocy. That’s how people learn.


25 posted on 07/26/2011 4:16:33 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Good, OTOH, is work. It takes discipline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

As of now TSP is VOLUNTARY. Nice try to equate it with Social Security.


26 posted on 07/26/2011 4:18:16 AM PDT by KantianBurke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
They could still mandate separation (with the individual’s retirement saving intact) if an enlistee failed to move up the ranks.

The bean counters like these sorts of retirement programs, because they don't have to incur future, unpredictable financial obligations. This program could conceivably keep all of the benefits of the existing retirement system, and simply eliminate the all or nothing 20 year point. People who are burned out at 18 or 19 years wouldn't have to stick around. People who stay longer could continue to accrue benefits.

27 posted on 07/26/2011 4:28:19 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Good, OTOH, is work. It takes discipline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I would propose this for the federal employees before I did this to our military. good for the goose and so on.


28 posted on 07/26/2011 4:32:59 AM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

KantianBurke: “You think that sort of program is going to keep people in for 20 years?”

It apparently keeps plenty of federal employees from leaving. It really depends on how much compensation they are talking about. If they are talking about matching funds and a guaranteed government contribution, like TSP, nothing says they couldn’t increase the government’s percent for time in grade and/or years served.

TSP is actually quite popular. I know a lot of military folks who like it, and they don’t currently get matching contributions. However, you’re correct about the potential to lose money. That isn’t the TSP program’s fault so much as government’s malfeasance in other areas, like social justice mortgage lending. Personally, I’d STILL rather own my retirement money outright than depend on government. They are constantly trying to inflate all of us military retirees out of our pensions. If it was my own money, I could at least take my own steps to mitigate that.


29 posted on 07/26/2011 4:42:39 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Good, OTOH, is work. It takes discipline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: plsjr
I don't know about anybody else, but there's no way I would have stayed in 20 if the retirement system didn't exist. This will demolish the NCO corps.

When someone joins the army he signs a check with a promise that states: "to be filled in later up to any amount including my life". That is their oath. Yes they deserve our ultimate support.

30 posted on 07/26/2011 4:48:24 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Richard Feynman father of Quantum Physics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

I’m pretty certain I would have gotten out at the 4-8 year point had it not been for the pension. I got married as a 1st Lt and there was a lot of pressure from the wife to just get a regular job and stay put. Not that I didn’t love the Military—I did. But once you get married and have kids, things change.


31 posted on 07/26/2011 4:49:32 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

I didn’t equate TSP with Social Security. I was comparing Social Security to the current military retirement system. My point was that you were opposed to giving PFC Snuffy the right to make his own retirement investment decisions, because he might choose poorly. That’s one of the same arguments made by Democrats when they refuse to let people opt out of Social Security.


32 posted on 07/26/2011 4:49:41 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Good, OTOH, is work. It takes discipline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

It apparently keeps plenty of federal employees from leaving.


Federal civilian employees are NOT military. No moving every 3 years. No up or out. No physical fitness requirements. No need to deploy. No risk of grave injury [save law enforcement].


33 posted on 07/26/2011 4:53:35 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE

Federal employees have had this plan for years, since sometime in the 80s, I believe.


34 posted on 07/26/2011 4:54:49 AM PDT by Marie Antoinette (Proud Clinton-hater since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE

BOBWADE: “I would propose this for the federal employees before I did this to our military.”

Federal employees already have a plan like this. It’s called TSP. I think they also receive a much smaller percent based on years served and salary at retirement, but TSP is the predominate federal employee retirement program. They contribute to their own pension plan, receive a certain amount of government matching funds, and can leave with whatever is in the account (lump sum or monthly payout or an annuity). It works very well.


35 posted on 07/26/2011 4:55:07 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Good, OTOH, is work. It takes discipline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Everyone in the military already has this ability, it’s called an IRA. This is just another attempt to stick it to the military while showering benefits on government unions.


36 posted on 07/26/2011 4:55:48 AM PDT by yuleeyahoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
As a 22 yr military retiree, I'm open to this concept, but I think that there are a lot of unintended consequences that they aren't thinking about.

The “cliff” is in effect a vesting schedule designed to keep experienced people through their prime, and then encourage them to leave.

On the other hand, the officer corps has a force out system that encourages a lot of very talented, but not fast track, people to consider getting out earlier than they normally would, because 20 yrs is looking unlikely and every passing year starts to look like wasted time. An allowance for these folks to be vested would make sticking around for another deployment more palatable.

I see many talented people hanging out through their shore (non-deployed) tour and then taking off before taking orders to a deploying unit, if there is no vesting structure to discourage it. Having a vesting schedule that locks in after each deployment might solve that issue, as well as address all of the magically pregnant or overweight, that suddenly can't deploy.

37 posted on 07/26/2011 4:55:55 AM PDT by SampleMan (If all of the people currently oppressed shared a common geography, bullets would already be flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The twenty year retirement was designed to get low, low, low paid draftees to stay in the military. The pay today is not low, so something needs to give and you have every half-ass civil service employee getting the same twenty year deal. Something needs to change,
38 posted on 07/26/2011 4:56:30 AM PDT by org.whodat (third party time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

Some federal civilian employees serve right with the active duty force and deploy regularly to the same hostile areas. Don’t paint with such a broad brush. You insult those who are making the same sacrifices as the active duty forces. There are some.


39 posted on 07/26/2011 4:59:34 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Good, OTOH, is work. It takes discipline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
You are the only one that look at this rationally. Dang compare the pay today to thirty years ago. And those old boys during Vietnam wore all those green bullet proof shirts that the government spent so much money on.
40 posted on 07/26/2011 5:01:09 AM PDT by org.whodat (third party time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570

Yeah, I remember that “free health care for life” ploy. One of the reasons I joined. Now I hear complaints that the retired military don’t pay their fair share with Tricare (prime or for life).

No one ever mentions, though thatunlike their civvy job, Uncle Sam can yank yoou up at a moments notice and move you around the globe with nary a care for your loved ones. Lots of times, they plunk yoou down where someone is taking potshots at you!

I signed up for the total package, not a Bait and Switch!!!


41 posted on 07/26/2011 5:01:13 AM PDT by catman67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Looks like Obama wants to change the Marine Corps into the Marine Corpse!


42 posted on 07/26/2011 5:05:44 AM PDT by catman67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
This will demolish the NCO corps.

I concur!

NCO's are the backbone of the military. These days many SNCO's have masters degrees especially in the Air Force.

I was hoping my son would one day serve like me but I'm beginning to think there won't be much of a military for him to serve in by then.
43 posted on 07/26/2011 5:22:36 AM PDT by TSgt (When in the Course of human events...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Oh, and thanks for your service! :)

I “retired” after 10 years...


44 posted on 07/26/2011 5:24:46 AM PDT by TSgt (When in the Course of human events...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I agree

Who wants to spend 4 or more tours in Afghanistan and Iraq or months away from contact with the family on a submarine because the employer offers a 401K plan

Wives will vote on this plan, too!

45 posted on 07/26/2011 5:25:08 AM PDT by silverleaf (All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Let’s see how the TSP is “owning your own money”?

Timmy Geithner has been running the US govt since June on over $200 Billion confiscated from the TSP, which is why our natioonal debt already is over the so-called debt ceiling. ($14.5 Trillion, not $14.3 Trillion)

I can just see govt choosing where folks get to invest their TSP money...maybe in govt securities...and having even more money to raid as a slush fund.


46 posted on 07/26/2011 5:29:05 AM PDT by silverleaf (All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

Yes, Ask anyone whose retirement savings were in TSP and who retired at the end of 2008.


47 posted on 07/26/2011 5:30:40 AM PDT by silverleaf (All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All

I assume Federal employees will also be giving up their pensions?

{Insert hysterical laughter here}


48 posted on 07/26/2011 5:38:22 AM PDT by TSgt (When in the Course of human events...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catman67
Yeah, I remember that “free health care for life” ploy.

Ditto. Bailing on that promise was, and remains, a dishonest and dishonorable bait-and-switch.

Count me among those who retired at 20 years to-the-day. I'd have left sooner if it weren't for the retirement.

49 posted on 07/26/2011 5:49:25 AM PDT by TontoKowalski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: catman67

There is no doubt the present system needs revamping when todays salaries and benefits are weighed against what the draftee earned. We could begin by drastically reducing the number of senior officers and enlisted serving in slots once served very well by two pay grades lower. Why do you have to be an officer to drive an airplane? What the heck are ex airplane drivers doing commanding a surface ship? Why does a highly trained seal, nuke or you name it have the same base pay as a snuffy serving mid rats? We might want to consider doing something for retired folks tax burden. I for one, paid more in taxes than I earned in retirement for too many years before I finally hung it up.


50 posted on 07/26/2011 5:50:11 AM PDT by BTCM (Death and destruction is the only treaty Muslims comprehend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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