View Full Version : Hagel Promises More Military Pay, Benefits Cuts
BMT (RIP)
12-20-2013, 07:45
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/19/hagel-promises-more-military-pay-benefits-cuts.html?ESRC=eb.nl
BMT
He says: "We can no longer put off military compensation reform," Hagel said. "We all know we need to slow the cost of growth. Tough decisions will have to be made on compensation,"
They act like the military is over compensated for what they do. Considering what the risk is and the amount of time sacrificed.....he can kiss my a--.
I am completely disgusted with this administration.
Firelord
12-20-2013, 08:05
Maybe the discussion we should be having is a reduction in congressional pensions and/or pay.
Streck-Fu
12-20-2013, 08:36
Federal employee pay and benefits should be cut before active military.
Why isn't Congress looking at State's budget and what they waste? Why are we always the target of these cuts? This is just pathetic. :(
The Reaper
12-20-2013, 12:45
Federal employee pay and benefits should be cut before active military.
FYI, Federal civilians have not had a pay raise since 2010.
How about cutting benefits from people who are on welfare or Social Security too?
They can cut pay and cut the force, and see another Task Force Smith when our politicians fail again.
Or they can bring back the draft for their sons and daughters and pay them little or nothing.
The cost of the All-Volunteer Force was briefed before our legislators voted for it.
Now after 12 years of continuous war, we are shocked at the cost of it.
Hmm.
TR
Convicted Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) is scheduled (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/08/jackson-jr-s-last-minute-mood-disorder-qualifies-for-disability/) to receive $8,700 per month in government disability pay , as well as a partial federal pension of $45,000. That generous $8,700 in disability comes thanks to Jackson ’s sudden development of a "mood disorder" as the federal government began looking to indict him. Jackson , who was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison , had no history of mental illness during his prior 17 years in Congress. Rev. Jesse Jackson has defended his son’s claims of mental illness , stating to the court , " This time a year ago I thought we may have lost him." So , Jesse Jackson , Jr. 17-year veteran of the US Congress , suddenly gets a "mood disorder" (about the same time he learned he was to be indicted) and is going to prison for 2.5 years. Because his "mood disorder" was so severe , he has become disabled and will receive $8700 per month as a disability payment as well as $45000 a year from his congressional pension , a total of about $150K per year. Is this a great country or what?
Streck-Fu
12-20-2013, 12:49
FYI, Federal civilians have not had a pay raise since 2010.
It is a freeze on the pay scales only. Salaries are still increasing: LINK (http://blogs.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2013/04/09/fed-salaries-still-increasing-despite-pay-freeze/)
My point is that reducing benefits for those that have already retired and served the term of their agreement should be a very last resort, not one of the first. There are no cuts to the federal employees benefits. They are only being asked to contribute a minimal percentage to their retirement. It is abhorrent that they cut from the retired military first....
Convicted Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) is scheduled (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/08/jackson-jr-s-last-minute-mood-disorder-qualifies-for-disability/) to receive $8,700 per month in government disability pay , as well as a partial federal pension of $45,000. That generous $8,700 in disability comes thanks to Jackson ’s sudden development of a "mood disorder" as the federal government began looking to indict him. Jackson , who was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison , had no history of mental illness during his prior 17 years in Congress. Rev. Jesse Jackson has defended his son’s claims of mental illness , stating to the court , " This time a year ago I thought we may have lost him." So , Jesse Jackson , Jr. 17-year veteran of the US Congress , suddenly gets a "mood disorder" (about the same time he learned he was to be indicted) and is going to prison for 2.5 years. Because his "mood disorder" was so severe , he has become disabled and will receive $8700 per month as a disability payment as well as $45000 a year from his congressional pension , a total of about $150K per year. Is this a great country or what?
One problem is that the majority of thinking Americans (app. 53%) will never get this information, but the worst of it is that if and when they do, they'll just roll their eyes, throw up their hands and whine instead of throwing these bums and their ancillary jesters like The Right Reverend (no Church) Jesse Jackson out on the street.
ddoering
12-20-2013, 13:17
And I though convicted felons lost their entitlements. Silly me.
...not to worry.
Our senior military leaders will be fighting for us and I am sure that our elected officials wont take money away from the military to spend on illegal aliens.
Everything will be ok.
ghp95134
12-21-2013, 00:52
Our senior military leaders will be fighting for us and I am sure that our elected officials wont take money away from the military to spend on illegal aliens.
Everything will be ok.
There! I fixed it for you.
--GHP
bushmaster11
12-21-2013, 01:10
I would be willing for the feds to let them take 5% out of my retirement. That would be my contribution to U S Financial stability. Having said that, The only way I would willingly let them take away from me is to take 5%, but that would apply from every swinging Richard and Sue Ann that receives a federal check.
It would apply from the President down to the janitor in National Park Service. Congress would not be excluded from that law, like they always do. I would also make an addendum that would add to the law that would prohibit congress from receiving pay increases, unless the same percentage applies to every recipient of federal funds.
This gimmee, gimmee from thieves from Congress exempting themselves from every onerous law. Congressional officials are temp workers, doing business to meet the needs of the whole. Instead they feed themselves at the whole's expense without repercussions . They are the best legislators that money can buy. How many of them lwere modestly wealthy yet leave office less than multimulionaires
Sorry about the diatribe, but this repetitive takebacks burns my a__.
J R Sends
DOL
Peregrino
12-21-2013, 08:59
I would be willing for the feds to let them take 5% out of my retirement. That would be my contribution to U S Financial stability. Having said that, The only way I would willingly let them take away from me is to take 5%, but that would apply from every swinging Richard and Sue Ann that receives a federal check.
It would apply from the President down to the janitor in National Park Service. Congress would not be excluded from that law, like they always do. I would also make an addendum that would add to the law that would prohibit congress from receiving pay increases, unless the same percentage applies to every recipient of federal funds.
This gimmee, gimmee from thieves from Congress exempting themselves from every onerous law. Congressional officials are temp workers, doing business to meet the needs of the whole. Instead they feed themselves at the whole's expense without repercussions . They are the best legislators that money can buy. How many of them lwere modestly wealthy yet leave office less than multimulionaires
Sorry about the diatribe, but this repetitive takebacks burns my a__.
J R Sends
DOL
I'm not willing to give the gov't one red cent more. I don't know about you but the fed already consumes more than 30% of my paycheck (and the state averages another 15+%). It's called taxes. Maybe congress should look at collecting from the ones who don't pay any (direct) taxes. Oh - Sorry. I forgot. That's their voter block. Never mind.
Utah Bob
12-21-2013, 12:30
Well, crap! :mad:
While I'm not against reforming things, there's two very big things that in my book would need to go with it.
1) Reform ALL government spending. As public "servants" (who seem to think their kings/queens) the ones on capitol hill make stupid amounts of money. Not to mention all the issues with various other programs and just how much money our country spends in general.
2) You do NOT change what has already been promised to people. While this would apply to #1 (simply because otherwise I don't trust the government to get it right and not both exempt certain people and screw others), I don't believe in pulling the rug out from under people. You do reform and then you let attrition get us there. It will be slow, but it is far better than simply screwing people while not really fixing the problem. So yes this would even apply to the leeches on various programs like welfare (though you can better enforce the rules for such programs and remove a bunch of people that way) because again, I don't trust the government to do it right if it isn't applied 100% equally across the board.
Personally I think it is kinda crazy that things haven't changed before this (though I'm not surprised). We're living longer but retirement ages and benefits haven't really changed. I mean imagine if things stayed the same but the average lifespan was 100 years. I could retire by 38 and then collect 62 years of retirement pay at 50%, or if I went to 48 and get 52 years at 75%. And get that all while getting to work other jobs (imagine "retiring" from your third job at 78 using the 20year military-style of retirement and how you would still have another 22 years). There's more efficient ways to set up a retirement fund for people and not spend so much of OUR money (since its our tax dollars paying each other) on able-bodied "retirees." And maybe then there would also be more money to be spent on medical care for those of us who actually need it once we get out (lol yea right, like the government wouldn't just throw the "savings" at some other pet project, but a man can dream).
And while I don't expect to see the average life hit 100 years in my lifetime (if at all, but who knows), it highlights the problem with our current system. But again, unless you absolutely can't afford it (and I mean Greece levels of "can't afford it" and not just "well we want this shiny new toy instead" can't afford it) you don't change what you have already promised on these things.
Also no, I'm not directly against my retirement being changed (would be hypocritical "this needs to be changed! For someone else..."), I'm against mine being changed because doing so would screw fellow service members and because it wouldn't be holding the government accountable for its actions and promises. Such change needs to be done properly and imo screwing people who you have already made an agreement with/promise to is NOT the right way to go about such change.
...... I could retire by 38 and then collect 62 years of retirement pay at 50%, or if I went to 48 and get 52 years at 75%....
Come back and post in this thread if your views change any after you go over 20.
20 years in the Combat Arms is not the same as 20 years at MicroSoft.
What post employment benefits do the following groups get...
...a one term, unpopular US president
...a one term, unpopular US Senator
...a one term, unpopular US Representative
...a one term cabinet member
...a federal law enforcement agent that does 4 years in the FBI/ATF/BLM etc
...a federal law enforcement agent that does 20 years in the FBI/ATF/BLM etc
...a federal law enforcement agent that does 30 years in the FBI/ATF/BLM etc
... a US postal worker at 20 and 30 years
What were these same people promised when they took the job?
What is being done to make sure that these government funded retirement plans are being reworked to more closely replicate the private sector?
How do these compare to the one enlistment post military benefits and the 20-30 year military retirement benefits?
Organize a national protest movement by exposing the ruling elite for what they really are. Maybe with a strategy that undermines their ability to defend their position as concerned "leaders".
"For the past 12 years, the military has fought the wars our nation asked them to; they did so, by bearing the burden of family hardships, long separations and multiple tours, many suffered catastrophic wounds and thousands paid the ultimate price of sacrificing their lives to defend you.
Now, that the wars are winding down, but far from resolved, the ruling elite want to punish those who have faithful served this Nation and fought in these horrible wars, by having their pay and benefits reduced to balance the federal budget.
Rather than addressing the budget by making hard social program choices, the ruling elite take the easy way out and attack the military pay and benefits package. A package that was never anything of note, for had it been, there would be lines of peoples from all economic levels enlisting in the military, instead of the lower 15% of the population.
Leadership requires the characteristics principle of leading by example. This is not the case in America today. We do not have leaders who lead by example. We have a class of ruling elite’s, who regard their election to office as a career, not as service to the Nation, nor as representing their constituents as their duty.
Their duty is their career; we all know this to be true, resulting in the country being led by self-interest. If Ryan, Hagel, Congress, the Senate, and the Executive branch were leaders, they would match the cuts they are asking the military to bear in their pay and benefits, and take the exact same cut in their retirement package. That would be real leadership.
By not exampling the exact same commitment, Ryan, Hagel and the rest of Congress are asking of the military, they expose the ruling elite for what the ruling elite are, nothing more than parasitic leaches".
What post employment benefits do the following groups get...
...a federal law enforcement agent that does 4 years in the FBI/ATF/BLM etc
...a federal law enforcement agent that does 20 years in the FBI/ATF/BLM etc
...a federal law enforcement agent that does 30 years in the FBI/ATF/BLM etc
... a US postal worker at 20 and 30 years
Just answering the parts I know. No argument here, just numbers.
Basic retirement benefits....
LEO 4 years $340 per month
LEO 20 years $1700 per month
LEO 30 years $2250 per month
USPS 20 years $917 per month
USPS 30 years $1375 per month
Plus 401k type contributions matched up to 3%
BMT (RIP)
12-23-2013, 18:13
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/23/1-percent-pay-raise-latest-pinch-for-troops-veterans-struggling-to-pay-bills/
BMT
Golf1echo
12-23-2013, 21:07
Take a small percentage of personnel from appropriate MOS's, when things die down, and go after the 80 Billion Dollars annually of Medicare Fraud and the coffers would be filled enough to honor those commitments made and then some...it is called priorities!
Come back and post in this thread if your views change any after you go over 20.
20 years in the Combat Arms is not the same as 20 years at MicroSoft.
Not all jobs in the military are as tough on the body as others. For example a finance person who didn't have such a physically taxing/damaging job is getting just as much retirement as someone who did 20 years in Combat Arms. But even then I would say that 62 years of retirement would be excessive and a drain on the military. Given how that would be 50% of your base pay when you retire (based on the rank you were for the last 3 years of your career), they are paying you retirement pay that is over 1.5x what they paid you for base pay over your entire career.
I'm sorry, but I think that paying someone 1.5x more in retirement than what they earned while actually working is an issue. And while we aren't at that point now, it illustrates the potential issue if something isn't done.
Firelord
12-24-2013, 04:58
Not all jobs in the military are as tough on the body as others. For example a finance person who didn't have such a physically taxing/damaging job is getting just as much retirement as someone who did 20 years in Combat Arms. But even then I would say that 62 years of retirement would be excessive and a drain on the military. Given how that would be 50% of your base pay when you retire (based on the rank you were for the last 3 years of your career), they are paying you retirement pay that is over 1.5x what they paid you for base pay over your entire career.
I'm sorry, but I think that paying someone 1.5x more in retirement than what they earned while actually working is an issue. And while we aren't at that point now, it illustrates the potential issue if something isn't done.
That pension you earned over twenty years and started collecting at age 38 is not going to be worth as much after another 20 years, much less 62 years. Also, the ability to retire from a physically and mentally demanding job after 20 years and begin another less stressful career can and sometimes is a recruitment incentive. Considering what a soldier in a combat MOS is expected to do, especially at a time of war, That pension is the very least we can do for them/
.....I'm sorry, but I think that paying someone 1.5x more in retirement than what they earned while actually working is an issue. And while we aren't at that point now, it illustrates the potential issue if something isn't done.
You're stuck at 62 years of retirement. First our life expectancy is not 100 years. Second the "life expectancy" is the average. Some folks die sooner and some later. The Taps section has a number of guys who didn't make it to Social Security age.
You also base your numbers on everybody coming in at 18. This board is full of younger folks who joined up at 24, 27 or older.
Lot of moving pieces.
The deal with Military retirement is it is an incentive to get the right people to enlist - and then reenlist.
If you can get better deals on the outside why come in?
You're stuck at 62 years of retirement. First our life expectancy is not 100 years. Second the "life expectancy" is the average. Some folks die sooner and some later. The Taps section has a number of guys who didn't make it to Social Security age.
You also base your numbers on everybody coming in at 18. This board is full of younger folks who joined up at 24, 27 or older.
Lot of moving pieces.
The deal with Military retirement is it is an incentive to get the right people to enlist - and then reenlist.
If you can get better deals on the outside why come in?
Patriotism, desire to defend one's country, "if I don't then who will" mindset, etc. I know I didn't join because it was the best paying job that I could have gotten (though I did join the service that offered me the most money).
And yes I understand there's a lot of moving parts. The point is that as life expectancy increases, so too do the costs. Rather than being like the politicians and waiting until it is an actual crisis, something should be done about it before then. What exactly, I don't know. They could go to a system where those that join 6+ months after the revised retirement plan is finalized will go to where the government pays X amount per year into a 401k or some other retirement fund (X would vary based off of rank). When you get out that money would go with you. Note that I am NOT talking about changing VA benefits or anything like that, just the monthly "retirement" check (not that most people actually retire, but instead they go and find another job). Or maybe something else would work.
I'm also not talking about only changing the military retirement and leaving all other government funding alone. ALL of it needs a cut. And they need to not simply cut from one program in order to increase spending somewhere else for no net reduction in the debt and deficit. Though that would be my biggest issue with any changes in the near-term. I don't feel that our government would make the changes that are needed for solvency and instead would simply be looking for some "easy" money to spend elsewhere at the expense of military retirees.
Not all jobs in the military are as tough on the body as others. For example a finance person who didn't have such a physically taxing/damaging job is getting just as much retirement as someone who did 20 years in Combat Arms. But even then I would say that 62 years of retirement would be excessive and a drain on the military. Given how that would be 50% of your base pay when you retire (based on the rank you were for the last 3 years of your career), they are paying you retirement pay that is over 1.5x what they paid you for base pay over your entire career.
I'm sorry, but I think that paying someone 1.5x more in retirement than what they earned while actually working is an issue. And while we aren't at that point now, it illustrates the potential issue if something isn't done.
You must be a "finance person"...
Patriotism, desire to defend one's country, "if I don't then who will" mindset, etc. I know I didn't join because it was the best paying job that I could have gotten (though I did join the service that offered me the most money).....
You are at the cut point - coming up at 10 years.
You have some hard choices to make in the coming years.
Shouldn't they be based on what you're promised now? Not the crumbs some politician throws you at a later date?
What's Grandfathered? Just a word dropped from a bill by "mistake" that "we can fix later"!
Ghost_Team
12-24-2013, 07:57
I see my retirement pay as bridging the gap between a military career and a civilian career. I don't care that I am "young enough to start another career."
Had I gotten a job at 18 with a company and been employed by the same company for 20 years, then I would have built up a salary, vacation, and benefits. There is a strong possibility (because I know guys who have done it) that when you retire, you are starting at an entry level position with low pay and low benefits. Building a second career from scratch after spending 20 years beating myself up establishing the first one is not a thought I relish, especially if I am going to have to wait until I am in my 60's to start collecting anything.
I made a deal with the government - you can send my ass all over the world, you can throw me out of planes, you can get me shot at and you can get me blown up. In return, I get my VA benefits, Tri-Care, and my pension at 20 years.
I lived up to my end of the bargain.
MiTTMedic
12-24-2013, 08:27
those that join 6+ months after the revised retirement plan is finalized will go to where the government pays X amount per year into a 401k or some other retirement fund (X would vary based off of rank). When you get out that money would go with you.
So, in other words you are suggesting the Government say "OK PVT Snuffy, we know you make 19k a year, but if you want retirement, you have to give up a little $$$. Of course, since we have lots of money, we'll add some to your money. Then, we'll put that money aside for you, and you can have it when you retire."
Yes, this will absolutely work! I mean, it's working so well for Social Security.....
I have a better idea. You stay in for 20 years (or more), get the required discharge, and you get 50% of your high-three. On day one of your retirement. That's called an "earned" benefit. If the politicians want to find cuts, there are many places to look to trim, like the "unearned" benefits.
SFOC0173
12-24-2013, 09:22
I made a deal with the government - you can send my ass all over the world, you can throw me out of planes, you can get me shot at and you can get me blown up. In return, I get my VA benefits, Tri-Care, and my pension at 20 years.
I lived up to my end of the bargain.
Well said.
The Reaper
12-24-2013, 10:29
Not all jobs in the military are as tough on the body as others. For example a finance person who didn't have such a physically taxing/damaging job is getting just as much retirement as someone who did 20 years in Combat Arms. But even then I would say that 62 years of retirement would be excessive and a drain on the military. Given how that would be 50% of your base pay when you retire (based on the rank you were for the last 3 years of your career), they are paying you retirement pay that is over 1.5x what they paid you for base pay over your entire career.
I'm sorry, but I think that paying someone 1.5x more in retirement than what they earned while actually working is an issue. And while we aren't at that point now, it illustrates the potential issue if something isn't done.
I suspect that your opinion will change over the years.
I entered at the age of 22. I retired at the age of 47 with some significant injuries and disabilities. We cannot live off of my retirement and disability income alone.
Getting a job in your late 40s and early 50s within those physical limitations is not as easy as you might assume, until you have tried it for yourself.
Do you want military personnel serving into their 50s and 60s? Can they do the jobs as well as younger soldiers, at that age, even as Finance personnel? The military has mandatory retirement ages for a reason, though they are not MOS specific. Until this war, soldiers (except for Warrant Officers) were not permitted to serve beyond 30 years without Congressional approval. Who made that rule and why?
The retirement policy is what it is because it is part of an accepted compensation package. If I agree to take your risks, austere assignments, dangerous missions, family separation, inability to refuse orders, legal prosecution for minor infractions, etc., you agree to pay me a certain salary, provide medical and dental for my family for life, offer retirement at a given rate, with COLA, etc., etc.
If I serve honorably for the term you specify and survive to retire, and you then reneg on several aspects of your offer, is that acceptable and morally right?
Does changing the rules in the middle of the game not make you a cheater who is welshing on his promises? What else were we promised that you can decide to take away without our consent?
Would you not expect potential recruits in the future to look at this and say, "No thanks?"
Then what do you have to pay, up front, to attract recruits?
What do those who are already in see when they look at this?
If you are coming up on your first re-enlistment, and you see that they are pulling the rug out from under people who are already retired, what do you think and do?
Finally, if we are taking one for the team, why isn't everyone else?
TR
I'm sorry, but I think that paying someone 1.5x more in retirement than what they earned while actually working is an issue. And while we aren't at that point now, it illustrates the potential issue if something isn't done.
Personally, I am offended at your callous remaks, and dis-respect for the House you have chosen to troll in!
The Brave American Soldiers who operate PS.com do not need my defense, but as an American, I am disgusted with you, and those who think like you!
And hey guess what? The QP's here gave that right to All Americans by shedding blood, tears, and lives. Live with that fact.:munchin
JMHO,
Holly
BLUF:
Vets, go fuck yourselves... you are a burden
Wow, go to bed and there's a ton of replies. This will be broken up into two posts due to being too long for one.
You must be a "finance person"...
How did I know that would be said once I posted that... I picked finance because that is one of the least taxing jobs I could think of, even when deployed. But no, I'm a Sensor Operator on the MC-12W. So while sure, as a flyer I get treated better than most and our "issues" would be laughed at by the harder MOS's (or AFSCs since I am AF after all), it isn't the most kush job I could think of. Especially with how the AF loves to screw over the platform.
You are at the cut point - coming up at 10 years.
You have some hard choices to make in the coming years.
Shouldn't they be based on what you're promised now? Not the crumbs some politician throws you at a later date?
What's Grandfathered? Just a word dropped from a bill by "mistake" that "we can fix later"!
They should be based off of what was promised when I joined. Hence why in my original post I stated that any reforms made would only be applied to those who sign up afterwards.
Now sure the legislature could do things to screw us like how you described in regards to grandfathering, but that is NOT what I'm suggesting.
I suspect that your opinion will change over the years.
I entered at the age of 22. I retired at the age of 47 with some significant injuries and disabilities. We cannot live off of my retirement and disability income alone.
Getting a job in your late 40s and early 50s within those physical limitations is not as easy as you might assume, until you have tried it for yourself.
No, I can believe that it isn't easy, especially in the current economy. But who's to say that a revamp of the system can't include such things in it?
Do you want military personnel serving into their 50s and 60s? Can they do the jobs as well as younger soldiers, at that age, even as Finance personnel? The military has mandatory retirement ages for a reason, though they are not MOS specific. Until this war, soldiers (except for Warrant Officers) were not permitted to serve beyond 30 years without Congressional approval. Who made that rule and why?
The retirement policy is what it is because it is part of an accepted compensation package. If I agree to take your risks, austere assignments, dangerous missions, family separation, inability to refuse [lawful] orders, legal prosecution for minor infractions, etc., you agree to pay me a certain salary, provide medical and dental for my family for life, offer retirement at a given rate, with COLA, etc., etc.
If I serve honorably for the term you specify and survive to retire, and you then reneg on several aspects of your offer, is that acceptable and morally right?
Fixed part of it for you (especially since I've seen many on here state that they would refuse certain orders). But no, that shouldn't be acceptable and isn't morally right. Then again, I also never said that it should be changed for people who are already serving, and I would challenge people to show me where I said such thing. If they find a spot where I said/alluded to such a thing then I'm sorry as that has NEVER been what I've been intending to say.
Does changing the rules in the middle of the game not make you a cheater who is welshing on his promises? What else were we promised that you can decide to take away without our consent?
It does, but again, that has never been what I've suggested and I am mad at the thought that they might try to pull this on people who they have already made one promise to.
Would you not expect potential recruits in the future to look at this and say, "No thanks?"
That is a possibility, but there's also people now who say that the retirement isn't enough of a reason for them to stay in. Likewise I've talked with people my age who aren't in and even they have said that the current retirement isn't "good enough" of a reason for them to join. So you're always going to have that issue.
Then what do you have to pay, up front, to attract recruits?
Well we could start by not being the world police, allowing us to shrink the size of the force (though I already know they will shrink the force while still being the world police, given that the AF is putting out the stuff in regards to looking to cut ~25k members due to "sequestration"). Then you have pay that properly compensates those that do join.
But I feel that over time (NOT an "all at once" method that our gov loves to do) we should return more to a style similar to when the country was founded. One where being part of a militia isn't viewed as what the rednecks, racists, and anarchists do, but rather a standard thing. The military would be highly trained (more-so than now, where training has been constantly going down due to "budget restraints") and could even work to help train said militias. Then if something broke out that truly needed US involvement the military is the initial force, while you pull in the militias to plus up the military. Once said conflict is over the majority of people would be released back to their previous life.
This is similar to how we used to do things (hence the mentioning of the "well regulated militia" bit in the Second Amendment) and imo would be better. But ever since WWII we have pretty much always found a reason to keep our military large and not shrink it back to pre-WWII levels. Given the death of militias and the Cold War I can see why we grew our military, but imo that doesn't mean we should keep it that way forever.
What do those who are already in see when they look at this?
If you are coming up on your first re-enlistment, and you see that they are pulling the rug out from under people who are already retired, what do you think and do?
Well that depends, are we talking about what I suggested or what Hagel and the legislature are likely to do? Because those are two different things. Here is the first sentence of my #2: "2) You do NOT change what has already been promised to people." So those that are already in and those coming up for re-enlistment shouldn't be seeing an issue of broken promises and the rug being pulled out from under them.
Finally, if we are taking one for the team, why isn't everyone else?
TR
As taken from my very first post on this subject:
While I'm not against reforming things, there's two very big things that in my book would need to go with it.
1) Reform ALL government spending. As public "servants" (who seem to think their kings/queens) the ones on capitol hill make stupid amounts of money. Not to mention all the issues with various other programs and just how much money our country spends in general.
Now, why are we the only ones "taking one for the team?" Because we're an easy target for the legislature, especially Dems. But that is NOT what I've been suggesting, that we just "take one for the team."
Personally, I am offended at your callous remaks, and dis-respect for the House you have chosen to troll in!
The Brave American Soldiers who operate PS.com do not need my defense, but as an American, I am disgusted with you, and those who think like you!
And hey guess what? The QP's here gave that right to All Americans by shedding blood, tears, and lives. Live with that fact.:munchin
JMHO,
Holly
Huh? Did you even read my initial post, or did you just jump in half-cocked partway through? You do realize that I too am in the military and thus am a part of those who have helped secure our freedoms, right? Also, just how have I been trolling? This is a serious topic, though part of a larger topic (it falls under maintaining a proper budget and solvency). And while I'm not surprised by the resistance to any change (just look at the outcry when any reform is attempted in this country, some justified, some not), that doesn't mean that such a discussion is trolling.
So, in other words you are suggesting the Government say "OK PVT Snuffy, we know you make 19k a year, but if you want retirement, you have to give up a little $$$. Of course, since we have lots of money, we'll add some to your money. Then, we'll put that money aside for you, and you can have it when you retire."
Yes, this will absolutely work! I mean, it's working so well for Social Security.....
I never said for the military member to have to put in money or anything like what you just said. What I had suggested was that the government would pay X into a retirement fund. To be more specific, an outside managed fund that the government CAN'T touch. And this money is to travel with you when you leave the military, just like in the civilian world when you move jobs you take your retirement fund with you.
I have a better idea. You stay in for 20 years (or more), get the required discharge, and you get 50% of your high-three. On day one of your retirement. That's called an "earned" benefit. If the politicians want to find cuts, there are many places to look to trim, like the "unearned" benefits.
/sigh. I said: "While I'm not against reforming things, there's two very big things that in my book would need to go with it..." Cutting from other such places as you describe goes with that. Please go back and read my initial post (taking note of the very first sentence, which I quoted here as well). I've never intended to suggest such changes to be applied to those already in or only to the military.
I see my retirement pay as bridging the gap between a military career and a civilian career. I don't care that I am "young enough to start another career."
I see how that can be a valid concern. Would it not be possible for such a concern to be addressed though by allowing military members the option to use some of their retirement when they get out to bridge such a gap?
Had I gotten a job at 18 with a company and been employed by the same company for 20 years, then I would have built up a salary, vacation, and benefits. There is a strong possibility (because I know guys who have done it) that when you retire, you are starting at an entry level position with low pay and low benefits. Building a second career from scratch after spending 20 years beating myself up establishing the first one is not a thought I relish, especially if I am going to have to wait until I am in my 60's to start collecting anything.
I made a deal with the government - you can send my ass all over the world, you can throw me out of planes, you can get me shot at and you can get me blown up. In return, I get my VA benefits, Tri-Care, and my pension at 20 years.
I lived up to my end of the bargain.
And the government should live up to their end of the bargain. But that doesn't mean that things should never change for future people who haven't joined yet.
It seems like a lot of people believe that I think that such changes should be applied to those that are already in or have already retired. It also seems like a lot of people think I only want the military to be affected while leaving all other spending alone. These things couldn't be further from what I said in my initial post (first post of page two) or further away from what I want.
As for a possibility on this subject, the government payout could be along the lines of base pay*((2.5*number of years served)/100) with the option to use some of the money when you get out in order to get set up and to help bridge gaps in changing one's career path. Again, this money would NOT be handled by the military, but rather an outside investment firm and would go with you (also meaning that should you die it would be handled like when a civilian with a retirement fund dies, and not simply go back to the government). They could also have it so that the member can choose which company manages the fund (would be better, as opposed to letting the government choose the winners and losers of who handles our retirement funds). I'm sure plenty of people could poke holes in that as well, but I never intended to come up with THE answer to the problem. I simply stated that I wouldn't be against reform IF two other conditions were also met.
And with that, it is time for me to see what is being served for Christmas. I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
..... These things couldn't be further from what I said in my initial post (first post of page two) or further away from what I want....."
What you want and what they are going to do is two different things.
And on "world police" the first question is "Is one needed?".
The second is "If not us then who do you think should fill the role?"
Disposable: Paul Ryan's Budget Epitomizes How Washington Actually Sees Veterans
http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-budget-veterans-pensions-2013-12
"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to look tough on budget issues. In an editorial published in USA Today explaining his decision to lead the passage of a budget that reduced vested veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000, Mr. Ryan founded his message on the urgent need to “do the right thing.”
In doing so, he created a painful irony; Ryan’s budget seeks to save $6B over the next 10 years – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of projected federal spending over that period — by extracting it from compensation already guaranteed to people who earned it risking their lives and defending their country. In other words, despite his assurances to the contrary, he wants to do exactly the wrong thing....."
Worth Reading.
What you want and what they are going to do is two different things.
And on "world police" the first question is "Is one needed?".
The second is "If not us then who do you think should fill the role?"
1) I fully understand that. As such chances are high that I would be opposed to any plan that they come up with in regards to altering our retirement. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm not automatically against any talk of changing our retirement (something I've seen in a lot of people, that ANY change is automatically bad and shouldn't be done). And that was what my initial post was about, that while I'm not automatically opposed to changing the retirement plan, that you 1) cut funding from other places as well, and 2) you follow through on the promises already made instead of changing the contract partway through.
2) Both yes and no. Yes in that when there's serious issues (things like genocide, not things like a civil war) someone needs to be willing to step in, but no in regards to the scale that we do it. Too often it seems that it turns into more of a political issue followed by trying to push our culture on others.
To use the war in Afghanistan as an example. I honestly don't care what type of government they have (democracy, constitutional republic, communism, dictator, etc) or if their culture keeps certain groups of people down (I disagree with such things, but it isn't my place to force my views onto their country). If the people of the country don't like it then they should push/fight for change (one could say this is potentially where special forces come in, though then you run into potential issues in regards to making enemies and meddling in other countries internal affairs and thus it would need special consideration). What I care about is are they a threat to us our allies to an extent, and/or are they performing some atrocity like genocide. They [Afghanistan] were a threat to us in that they were harboring terrorists and helping them under the table, with the 9-11 attacks showing that the threat was more than talk, but that they had the actual capability to strike.
Once we removed the threat we should have left. Also I believe in the "speak softly and carry a big stick" mantra. So once it switched to a more conventional war we should have just used overwhelming force. Instead imo we appear weak given all of the handcuffs (and no I won't talk about the exact handcuffs as I don't want to risk a security incident). And while I'm all for trying to mitigate CIVCAS, if you're going to harbor the enemy or the enemy is using you as a shield then there's going to be casualties. If they don't like it then don't harbor them and help us root them out. But once they are dealt with to a point of no longer being a realistic threat worthy of military action (for there will always be threats that if you let your guard down could be an issue) then LEAVE. Let the people decide what government they want. If they don't like the current leadership then let them handle it. If the old leadership takes back over, well if the job was properly done they will think twice about supporting those that would attack us even if they don't like us. While I don't mind being your friend if that is what you desire, I'm not here to make you my friend, rebuild your country, or bring "democracy" to your country (not even sure why we keep calling it this since we usually bring some type of a constitutional republic and not a true democracy where everyone has a vote on every item). I'm here to deal with a threat to my nation.
Same can be said if we have to step into a country due to genocide or some other issue. Crush the enemy, make them think twice about both what they did and doing it again (knowing that if they do we will be back), and then leave.
3) He who is paid, or the UN (if, you know, the UN wasn't horribly broken like the League of Nations before it). After all this is the point of the UN and why we waste so much money on them. Instead the UN has turned into pretty much a do-nothing organization that just sucks money primarily from the US. Likewise, if we're forced to step into a country I have no problem with raiding the coffers of the government to get compensation for us having to police their mess.
Now I know that this is a rather cold way of looking at things. But honestly, why should our country go into such debt and deal with such losses to try and bring "change" to a place that has very little desire for it? Why should my great-grandkids who aren't even born yet likely have to deal with the debt of today? Just because someone thought it was "the right thing to do." Sorry, but no. Take care of America first, and then help those that want to be helped.
Monsoon65
12-26-2013, 17:05
My brother and father both retired from the AF with 20 and 24 years in. I retired from the ANG with 29 (11 active, 18 Guard).
Out of the three of us, my brother is getting the shaft for the longest. Dad is in his 80's, I don't get to collect my pension until I get to be 60.
It's low hanging fruit for Congress. Who cares if vets get the long, lean, bonejob? If it was the unemployed, or food stamps, or some other entitlement, the liberals would be whipping themselves into a freakin' frenzy over it. Vets? Eh, tough luck.
POTUS said "America has your back, vets" on Veterans Day. That was right about the time Hagel was talking about getting rid of the Commissaries. Now, just before Christmas and while we still have troops in the field, they cut the pensions.
The Reaper
12-26-2013, 19:25
One thing I can guarantee about Congress tinkering with our retirement.
The changes will not be for the benefit of the veteran.
“A Time For Prayer"
"In times of war and not before,
God and the soldier we adore.
But in times of peace and all things righted,
God is forgotten and the soldier slighted."
Rudyard Kipling
Hell, they're not even waiting for us to disengage before screwing us this time.
TR
Convicted Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) is scheduled (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/08/jackson-jr-s-last-minute-mood-disorder-qualifies-for-disability/) to receive $8,700 per month in government disability pay , as well as a partial federal pension of $45,000. That generous $8,700 in disability comes thanks to Jackson ’s sudden development of a "mood disorder" as the federal government began looking to indict him. Jackson , who was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison , had no history of mental illness during his prior 17 years in Congress. Rev. Jesse Jackson has defended his son’s claims of mental illness , stating to the court , " This time a year ago I thought we may have lost him." So , Jesse Jackson , Jr. 17-year veteran of the US Congress , suddenly gets a "mood disorder" (about the same time he learned he was to be indicted) and is going to prison for 2.5 years. Because his "mood disorder" was so severe , he has become disabled and will receive $8700 per month as a disability payment as well as $45000 a year from his congressional pension , a total of about $150K per year. Is this a great country or what?
I have to admit to be more than a little behind the curve regarding this thread. I was under the impression that this POS JJ Jr. would not resign his seat until this sweetheart deal was in the bag. This whole subject about cutting military pensions and benefits leaves me speechless and more than a little angry.
MiTTMedic
12-27-2013, 06:29
I was under the impression that this POS JJ Jr. would not resign his seat until this sweetheart deal was in the bag. This whole subject about cutting military pensions and benefits leaves me speechless and more than a little angry.
I don't think it's possible that a Wounded Warrior can get $8,700 a month in disability, no matter what happened to them.
1stindoor
12-27-2013, 07:33
I don't think it's possible that a Wounded Warrior can get $8,700 a month in disability, no matter what happened to them.
It would depend on the individuals rank, time in service, and his/her disability. Look at the pay scales for senior officers...at around 30 years...add to that disability from the VA...it's not as far fetched as you would think. But still pretty rare to hit that mark.
The Reaper
12-27-2013, 10:18
I don't think it's possible that a Wounded Warrior can get $8,700 a month in disability, no matter what happened to them.
Military base pay is capped at $12,700 per month. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs makes the same as the newest two star. There are no pay raises after O-8. Some corporate executives make that much in a day or less.
I know of a few GOs that served past 40 years of service, but that is pretty rare.
VA Disability is capped at $3,017 per month for all ranks for a vet and his spouse. Very few retirees, particularly GOs, will be this badly disabled.
For those who are medically retired from the military (not VA), they can choose either the percentage of disability assigned or the years of creditable service times 2½%. In either case, the multiplier is limited to 75% by law.
In the case of a member on the TDRL, the minimum percentage is 50% while on the TDRL.
I suppose if a GO was 100% disabled and was medically retired, he could theoretically make that much. In reality, I have never heard of a GO being medically retired, much less at that rate.
This is kind of like the pay charts showing the pay for a Major General with less than two years of service. There is a number, but there are no people actually collecting it.
Hope that helps.
TR
MiTTMedic
12-27-2013, 10:40
I should have clarified "VA disability", not VA disability, medical retirement, and such combined.
That being said, a SGT with 10-years in that has suffered a quad amputation would not bring in the compensation that JJJr does, which, in my opinion, is criminal.
Huh? Did you even read my initial post, or did you just jump in half-cocked partway through?
Excuse me, I read you initial post, and no I am not an idiot. But thanks for asking.:rolleyes:
But you are not a Special Forces Soldier, correct?
Those that are should be treated by the US Government fairly and given ALL the benefits we can provide as a Nation, as ALL Veterans should be.
And I don't give a good damn if it is an extra tax, IT IS earned, Peroid.
JMHO,
Holly:munchin
Excuse me, I read you initial post, and no I am not an idiot. But thanks for asking.:rolleyes:
But you are not a Special Forces Soldier, correct?
Those that are should be treated by the US Government fairly and given ALL the benefits we can provide as a Nation, as ALL Veterans should be.
And I don't give a good damn if it is an extra tax, IT IS earned, Peroid.
JMHO,
Holly:munchin
So, you're disgusted in someone who would be willing to look at reform if said reform was applied to the entire government AND said reform would only be applied to new promises made after said law was passed (so wouldn't affect a single person who already had a promise/contract made to them before said passage)?
I am also still curious as to how my remarks were callous or trolling. Yes there were a few times where I might have gotten a bit short due to it seeming like I was constantly repeating myself in regards to stating that no I don't believe such changes should be applied to those already serving/retired, and that I would only agree with looking at reform if it wasn't just the military "taking one for the team," and rather part of reform to ALL government spending. But that is neither being callous or trolling. I could show you what a callous/trolling post would look like from me, but that is best left to PMs if you so desire.
Also personally I don't want ALL the benefits that CAN be provided by the nation, I want the benefits that were agreed to when I joined. ALL that CAN be provided (as opposed to what is currently agreed to) is a rather tall order that I don't think would be fair to the country in regards to cost. This would also change based on the economics of the country, cost of new/experimental treatments and/or prosthesis, and could cause issues if something was provided simply because it "could" be, only to no longer be available at a later date for whatever reason. Now what would be nice would be if they would quit screwing people on benefits due to paperwork, delays, etc. And then there's the bit of how the VA was (still is? I'm not sure) stripping veterans of their rights (namely 2A rights that I know of) as can be seen here (http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/disarming-americas-heros-veterans-receiving-official-letters-prohibiting-them-from-purchasing-possessing-receiving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition#sthash.Or96RB50.dpbs).
Aknazer - echoes
I'm going to make you two get a room if you keep it up.
And no buts.
From Strategic Studies Institute
Military retirement reform is desperately needed, yet there is surprisingly little open discussion on the topic. For a unique perspective on this strategic issue, follow this link examining the Third Rail of Military Retirement Reform.
The Third Rail of Military Retirement Reform (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY7Qc6SzhHM)
Published on Dec 20, 2013
A quick look at the Defense Business Board and 10-15-55 military retirement reform proposals.
1stindoor
01-24-2014, 07:34
Interesting video....especially at the very end where the "audience" appears to be in support of the planned "savings." I'd like to see a similar presentation done where our elected officials realize that their retirement system is unsustainable.
This week's Army Times
Page 6 - COLA cut pushback
Top enlisted retirees take exception to four-star's support.
They were CMS of the AF Roy, SGM of the MC Kent, MC/PO of the Navy Campa, SGM of the Army Tilly, MC/PO of the CG Bowen and MC/PO of the CG Patton.
Page11 - Kicking working-age retirees off Tricare Prime could save $90B.
The title speaks for itself.
Sorta tied to this thread:
Dropped in my email yesterday:
"Effective Immediately Soldier who have a contractual FY14 ETS Date (on or before 30 Sep 2014) must be processed for reenlistment under Prevision of the Precision Retention Program MA-O.
All FY 14 ETS request will need to submit a 4187 endorsed by the fist LTC in the chain of Command. Failure to provide substantial justification for this exception may result in disapproval. Any commissioned commander through the first LTC in the Soldier's chain of command who does not believe the request has merit will disapprove it without further processing. Soldier is "HIGHLY ENCOURAGED" to describe the reason they are requesting an exception to reenlist and include it with the packet along with a DA form 3340.
If Soldier is approved for retention, Soldier will be either authorized to Reenlist or extend. If they are approved for Reenlistment it will only be for 2yrs, unless they are eligible for a bonus. Those authorized extension will be based on the needs of the Army. The determination is made by HRC. Once approved Soldiers have 7 days to complete approved action. More info and examples will be released to you as I receive them."
..and so it begins. I am sure for SF the story may be different . For the regulars, this is not good news.
1stindoor
01-28-2014, 07:26
Sorta tied to this thread:
..and so it begins. I am sure for SF the story may be different . For the regulars, this is not good news.
This has also been done before, for the 18 series as well...miss the window because you were hedging your bets on the re-up bonus...and you could very well find yourself begging to get a 4187 signed allowing you to reenlist.
BMT (RIP)
01-28-2014, 07:48
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/26/are-u-s-veterans-selfish/#ixzz2rdoJw1ZG
BMT
What happens when Atlas shrugs?