[af_vet_1981]

I have frequently seen the argument that conservatives were not trying to cut social programs but simply to reduce the inflationary growth. This one percent reduction in the COLA increase for some military retirees seems along the same line. It always feels different when they reduce an expense one is dependent on or supports. I support military pensions and do not think they should be reduced by one percent. In priciple, I'm having a hard time differentiating their cuts from the city of Detroit's retirees though. Should all pensions be off limits to reduction, or only those I support ?

[rlmorel]

"...I'm having a hard time differentiating their cuts from the city of Detroit's retirees though..."

I have no problem differentiating this at all. Detroit and their employee unions (not just the city of Detroit, but car companies working there) are not (or SHOULD not) ever be beneficiaries of MY tax dollars. I don't live there, have never worked at a GM plant or whatever.

What happens to their pension plans is between them, the City of Detroit, and whatever locality is paying for those pensions. I don't wish ill on them, but when one sees some of the pensions offered to various municipalities (especially in states like California and Massachusetts) that are completely and totally unsustainable due to bad agreements AND bad planning/execution, that is not my issue.

But as someone paying federal taxes to cover the benefits that should go to our military retirees and veterans, I DO feel that this is something I should have an interest in.

And, just to be clear: I am NOT saying "DON'T CUT ANYTHING", what I AM saying is "If we are going to cut military benefits, I will not concede to a single cut until ALL areas of ALL budgets are subjected to the SAME scrutiny, as a minimum..."