View Full Version : McCain Open to Changes in Mil Benefits, Retirement
BMT (RIP)
10-14-2011, 07:34
http://www.military.com/news/article/mccain-open-to-changes-in-mil-benefits-retirement.html?ESRC=eb.nl
BMT
1stindoor
10-14-2011, 08:08
McCain also urged the so-called supercommittee to consider restricting working-age military retirees and their dependents from enrolling in TRICARE Prime, which has the lowest out-of-pocket expenses. The retirees could still enroll in other TRICARE programs. McCain pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that such a move would save $111 billion over 10 years.
F#&k him! Let's consider completely revamping Congress's benefits.
Streck-Fu
10-14-2011, 08:12
F#&k him! Let's consider completely revamping Congress's benefits.
Agreed.
From the article: "The Pentagon's health care costs have skyrocketed from $19 billion in 2001 to $53 billion..."
Now I wonder - could that have anything to do with Federal Reserve policy and the ongoing conflicts around the world with the resulting injuries and long-term care implied by same?
So the men and women of the military will sacrifice yet more for government policies. That sounds, at the very least, as if Senator McCain is breaking faith with those subject to the cuts.
Ret10Echo
10-14-2011, 09:26
F#&k him! Let's consider completely revamping Congress's benefits.
I believe the term is "I got mine"
nmap:
ongoing conflicts around the world with the resulting injuries and long-term care implied by same?
I would suggest that is also reflective of the success rate of the combat medics and military medicine in-theater.
Unfortunately I think its almost unavoidable that DoD is going to cut Retirement benefits, both pension and medical. The defense budget is shrinking, and personnel costs are going up. They now constitute a large share (40 percent or so IIRC) of the annual budget, and the service chiefs are all pressing for the change.
As you said, "they got theirs". All of them will get a seat on the board at Lockheed, and they are all over 20 by a long shot, so making "painful" cuts is fairly painless from their personal perspectives.
The only thing keeping the wolves at bay are select members of Congress who fear retribution for consenting with their votes.
HOWEVER.... If it comes down to a choice between cutting large weapons programs, with large constituencies in numerous congressional districts and all 50 states, or carving up GI JOE's bennies (GI JOE doesn't vote at a high enough rate, even when his absentee vote is counted...), then I think Congressman X's cost analysis will lead him to kick GI JOE off the cliff.
Its just my personal opinion, but I think that McCain's trial balloon here is a sign of whats to come. YMMV
greenberetTFS
10-14-2011, 17:07
F#&k him! Let's consider completely revamping Congress's benefits.
I concur!!......:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
If congressional retirement and benefits were equal to the militaries, they wouldn't even be thinking about this crap.:mad:
The Reaper
10-14-2011, 17:23
Unfortunately I think its almost unavoidable that DoD is going to cut Retirement benefits, both pension and medical. The defense budget is shrinking, and personnel costs are going up. They now constitute a large share (40 percent or so IIRC) of the annual budget, and the service chiefs are all pressing for the change.
As you said, "they got theirs". All of them will get a seat on the board at Lockheed, and they are all over 20 by a long shot, so making "painful" cuts is fairly painless from their personal perspectives.
The only thing keeping the wolves at bay are select members of Congress who fear retribution for consenting with their votes.
HOWEVER.... If it comes down to a choice between cutting large weapons programs, with large constituencies in numerous congressional districts and all 50 states, or carving up GI JOE's bennies (GI JOE doesn't vote at a high enough rate, even when his absentee vote is counted...), then I think Congressman X's cost analysis will lead him to kick GI JOE off the cliff.
Its just my personal opinion, but I think that McCain's trial balloon here is a sign of whats to come. YMMV
Easy fix.
Draft your sons and daughters to go fight, and pay them $150 per month for doing it. Let your son shower with the fag from down the hall, or room with him. Let your children and grandchildren get military health care, such as it is. Then kick them out ten years later for things that happened five years before. And confiscate their 401K on the way out.
That will really cut personnel costs.
As predicted when we started the all-volunteer military.
TR
Easy fix.
Draft your sons and daughters to go fight, and pay them $150 per month for doing it. Let your son shower with the fag from down the hall, or room with him. Let your children and grandchildren get military health care, such as it is. Then kick them out ten years later for things that happened five years before. And confiscate their 401K on the way out.
That will really cut personnel costs.
As predicted when we started the all-volunteer military.
TR
I'm not arguing in favor of the idea Sir, just making a prediction, one that I has a historical precendent.
I agree that ending the current retirement program in favor of a TSP/401K plan will cause enormous problems to the volunteer force. Based on personal experience and observations of a limited branch range (Infantry, SF), I don't think that the quality of enlistees and company grade officers will change; many don't enter with aspirations of 20 year career and join largely for the experiece/challenge/sense of duty or patriotism. I think the rate of re-enlistment for first term soldiers will remain the same, as few of those decisions are based on a 20 year thought process.
The massive hemmorhage will be at the CPT-MAJ / ~10 year NCO mark. The excitement and sense of adventure has waned, the family they've acquired by this point is sensibly looking to the future and pissed off by long seperations and deployments. I can't see a large incentive for any combat arms NCOs to stay past this point, especially NCOs from the Regiment, who have options and aren't tied to the service because they lack the ability to survive outside the Army.
I don't think enlistment will decline (much), but I'm not a recruiter; I could be wrong. I don't think pay will go down, it may even increase along with targeted bonuses. I think it will remain a Volunteer force.
But I do think the senior NCO ranks as they look now will cease to exist, and the Army will will become much less professional and capable, taking on the flavor of a draftee army without the cost benefits. SF IS going to have a retention disaster, I hope Tampa is brainstorming that one. I'm not smart enough to tell you what will happen to the officer corps at the field grade and above. My two cents, your mileage may vary.
I already have to shower with the fag down the hall.
BMT (RIP)
10-17-2011, 14:34
http://www.military.com/military-report/mccain-okay-with-military-benefit-cuts?ESRC=miltrep.nl
BMT
greenberetTFS
10-17-2011, 15:13
Easy fix.
Draft your sons and daughters to go fight, and pay them $150 per month for doing it. Let your son shower with the fag from down the hall, or room with him. Let your children and grandchildren get military health care, such as it is. Then kick them out ten years later for things that happened five years before. And confiscate their 401K on the way out.
That will really cut personnel costs.
As predicted when we started the all-volunteer military.
TR
We really should seriously consider starting up the draft again!........:lifter:lifter
Big Teddy :munchin
We really should seriously consider starting up the draft again!........:lifter:lifter
Big Teddy :munchin
No we should not.
The Draft takes people in against their will. Notice how quiet the college campuses have been during this last long war? It's all because of the volunteer Army. Hard to get fired up when you don't have to go.
Look at the folks going AWOL. Even they were having a hard time getting lots of lib support. Kind of a "Well you signed up for it dude."
About the best they can do now days is the homeless vet down at the local shelter.
All of the above is a far cry from the riots, sit ins and draft card burnings of the late 60s.
Draft? Just say "NO!"
I had an "insider's" view to the last draft and, from what I saw and a prime reason why I became a volunteer for SF, I would advise the decision makers to remember that - for the most part - you get what you pay for when it comes to such matters.
Can we afford to go with a Yugo equipped military in today's world when we have a requirement for an F-250 Super Duty defense force?
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
10-17-2011, 18:15
I think the point is that there is a reason defense budget costs are so high. Personnel costs represent the minimum required by Congress to get volunteers to defend this great country.
Periodically, our leadership might need a reminder of that.
Might not hurt to also remind some of the sheeple that someone is standing their watch for them, and guaranteeing their rights.
Want another radical idea?
No service, no vote.
Straight from Heinlein.
TR
1stindoor
10-18-2011, 06:19
No service, no vote.
Straight from Heinlein.
TR
Service guarantees citizenship!
pbr549xxx
10-18-2011, 11:20
Want another radical idea?
No service, no vote.
Straight from Heinlein.
TR
I concur with you Sir.
"Easy fix.
Draft your sons and daughters to go fight, and pay them $150 per month for doing it. Let your son shower with the fag from down the hall, or room with him. Let your children and grandchildren get military health care, such as it is. Then kick them out ten years later for things that happened five years before. And confiscate their 401K on the way out.
That will really cut personnel costs.
As predicted when we started the all-volunteer military.
TR"
100% Agree on that.
Ret10Echo
10-26-2011, 05:19
Interesting article from this morning that discusses the DOD position that Military Retirement is AFFORDABLE..
One paragraph that I picked out was the following:
20-year rule
The business board's claim that the retirement system is unfair is based on the fact that servicemembers who leave the military before 20 years get no pension at all, and only 17 percent of military members serve long enough to earn a pension. Also, there is no difference in retirement pay between those who serve in low-risk positions compared to those who have more dangerous jobs.
In industry, short of a buyout or specific to your position/company benefits package you may or may not get anything for 20, 30 or more years with the organization. So is that comparable to military retirement...should a one-and-done be provided a benefit package at some proportional rate? Congress gets one with a single term. IMHO, neither should be considered for a benefits package after 4 or 6 years...
But are things like education benefits, Veteran's hiring preference or extending PX and Commissary privileges a valid "in-kind" compensation short of a check at the end of the month?
Full article here (http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=394&sid=2607220)(From WTOP dot com)