Budget negotiators looking at military pensions

[SFOC0173]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...ns-100847.html

The last paragraph is odd in that 5 years and 60 months used to be the same, is this an example of the new math?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by SFOC0173

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...ns-100847.html

The last paragraph is odd in that 5 years and 60 months used to be the same, is this an example of the new math?

From article: (lol)

"The Obama budget partially opened the door here as well. But the president tended to focus more on pharmacy fees and premiums charged for TRICARE just as the president did with more Medicare means-testing. But since Democrats have ruled out big Medicare changes—without some concessions by the GOP on taxes—there is a reluctance to go down the TRICARE road now."

[Richard]

Originally Posted by SFOC0173

The last paragraph is odd in that 5 years and 60 months used to be the same, is this an example of the new math?

I don't think so. Read the next-to-last paragraph where it says:

"Right now, this is typically based on the three consecutive years of highest earnings for a civilian; 36 months for the military."

It appears that it has to do with the language used in the regulations - they use "years" in the civilian regs and "months" in the military regs, and the article was being consistent with that usage.

Richard

[SFOC0173]

Thanks for the clarification.

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't think so. Read the next-to-last paragraph where it says:

"Right now, this is typically based on the three consecutive years of highest earnings for a civilian; 36 months for the military."

It appears that it has to do with the language used in the regulations - they use "years" in the civilian regs and "months" in the military regs, and the article was being consistent with that usage.

Richard

Richard thanks for point out the fact that it is throughout, I had to go back and look at it. All I can say is, WTH is going on in DC?