Avoiding the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ May be as Painful as Going Over It

[Pete]

Avoiding the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ May be as Painful as Going Over It

Read more: http://militaryadvantage.military.co...#ixzz2Cl1xj6rk
MilitaryAdvantage.Military.com

"This week Tom Philpott reported that the Congressional Budget Office has put a red “laser dot” on future pay raises, TRICARE, and future retirement benefits.

In their report, the CBO says annual military pay raises have exceeded civilian wage growth over the last 10 years. In fact the CBO estimates that military pay increased by 52 percent from 2002 to 2010 while civilian wages rose only 24 percent................"

We've talked about this plan before and it will just not die. In fact to politicians it sounds better and better. If Military benefits become equal to civilian benefits it will be harder to convince folks to make the military a career.

[SPEC4]

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just
pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more
than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible
for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds)
took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple!
The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail,
cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to
a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask
each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will
have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed
around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.

[Dozer523]

Dang, if you're so smart, why ain't you rich?

[mark46th]

Here is how Germany solved its financial crisis after World War I...
The solution
With Germany on its knees, the government finally acted. A new centre-right government had been established in August 1923 led by Gustav Stresemann, a renowned politician of the liberal right-wing German People's Party. The German government realized eventually that it would be unable to defeat the French and Belgian invasion, and would have to accept the agreed reparations. Resistance to the French and Belgian forces was abandoned. Reparation payments were restarted, and economic stability was re-established. In November 1923 the government called a halt to new currency issues of marks. A new currency, the Rentenmark, backed by land and property was created. The new government led by Stresemann realised the mistakes made in the past and tried to solve them. Each Rentenmark was exchangeable for 1 trillion old marks with a limit of 2.4 billion Rentenmarks to be issued. The government also cut its expenditure, partly by sacking around 700,000 employees.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by mark46th

Here is how Germany solved its financial crisis after World War I...
The solution. . . .[/B]

That was before someone coined the phrase,
"Secondary and tertiary effect . . ."

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by Pete

In their report, the CBO says annual military pay raises have exceeded civilian wage growth over the last 10 years. In fact the CBO estimates that military pay increased by 52 percent from 2002 to 2010 while civilian wages rose only 24 percent................"

What was it from 1993 to 2001? I don't know off the top of my head but I'd be willing to bet that the growth in military pay lagged significantly behind their civilian counterparts during the Clinton era. If the all the growth in pay from 2002 to 2010 did was cause the military pay to catch up with the rest of society, so what? I hate when people make an argument by selecting a timeframe that fits their argument. If you use the last 20 years instead of the last eight than the growth in military pay isn't so unreasonable.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Pete

Avoiding the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ May be as Painful as Going Over It

Read more: http://militaryadvantage.military.co...#ixzz2Cl1xj6rk
MilitaryAdvantage.Military.com

"This week Tom Philpott reported that the Congressional Budget Office has put a red “laser dot” on future pay raises, TRICARE, and future retirement benefits.

In their report, the CBO says annual military pay raises have exceeded civilian wage growth over the last 10 years. In fact the CBO estimates that military pay increased by 52 percent from 2002 to 2010 while civilian wages rose only 24 percent................"

We've talked about this plan before and it will just not die. In fact to politicians it sounds better and better. If Military benefits become equal to civilian benefits it will be harder to convince folks to make the military a career.

This might be a lot easier to do if the POTUS and Congress would quit sending our soldiers off to war and possible death. I wonder how many people would be willing to volunteer to spend years at the time away from their families, no alcohol, sex, or comforts of home, for minimum wages? Hard to hire for dangerous jobs with low wages when the bennies are good back home. This too, will eventually be proven to be a big mistake.

Originally Posted by rubberneck

If the all the growth in pay from 2002 to 2010 did was cause the military pay to catch up with the rest of society, so what? I hate when people make an argument by selecting a timeframe that fits their argument. If you use the last 20 years instead of the last eight than the growth in military pay isn't so unreasonable.

That was the stated purpose of the pay raises, and IIRC, most of them were 0.5% above the cost of living allowance to try and bridge the widening gap with civilian salaries.

They also said government civilian pay was behind and was preventing the Feds from hiring the best qualified people to fill vacancies, and we are going on our third year of no pay raises for civilian employees.

TR

[mark46th]

My first paycheck in 1970 was for $89.00. My car was reposessed because my payments were twice that.

In addition to being In Harm's Way, our soldiers, sailor's and marines are gone for 6 months or more on deployment, leaving wives and children at home. It is a dangerous, stressful job that calls for personal sacrifice on a daily basis. Our guys deserve every penny they earn.

[Pete]

Once lost - never to be returned - "we can't afford it".

Remember - any "savings" comes out of the service member's pocket.

[BKKMAN]

From the 1999 Pay Gap Report: Yet the central finding of this analysis is not that DoD needs to develop a better measure of a pay gap, whether based on levels of pay or on changes in pay over time. Instead, the main lesson is that no matter how carefully military and civilian pay or changes in pay are compared, such comparisons do not provide useful guides for DoD over the long run as it seeks to meet its requirements for well-qualified personnel. Many factors other than pay affect DoD’s ability to meet its needs. Over time, the attractiveness of military service can change, civilian employment opportunities can improve or worsen, and indeed, the military's personnel needs can change.

1999 Report: Provided that DoD is meeting its personnel goals, it does not matter whether, in the past, military pay rose more slowly than pay in the civilian sector.

Based on that logic, it shouldn't matter when it rises faster either...

Interesting that in the CBO's 1999 look at the then 13% "pay gap" with civilian pay (which they decided was comparing apples and oranges and wasn't worthwhile in the end, because as seen in the quote above, they decided that the military should be paid at a rate that would keep skilled/desirable/quality folks in the force, regardless of what the civilian sector was being paid).

2012 Report: CBO estimates that cash compensation increased by 52 percent overall during that period, whereas private-sector wages and salaries rose by 24 percent.

Now here they are arguing a decade later that our pay went up 52% compared with a private sector average of 24%, when they said in 1999, right before the time that they are looking at (2002-2010), that it was an essentially useless comparison and that the military should be paid at a rate that will keep people in...

You have to love Uncle Sugar and the bean counters...

1999 Pay Gap Report Link

2012 Military Compensation Link

[Pete]

Federal Workers to Congress: Leave Us Out of Deficit Deal

http://nationaljournal.com/congress-...-deal-20121120

"The Federal-Postal Coalition -- a group representing more than two dozen federal employee unions -- pleaded with Congress on Monday to spare their members in any deal related to the "fiscal cliff."

Federal workers, the coalition wrote in a letter, have contributed more than their fair share toward reducing the debt and are the only group that has been targeted so heavily..........................."

The Military is not a Union so the question becomes - "Are they on our side - or their's ?"

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Pete

Federal Workers to Congress: Leave Us Out of Deficit Deal

http://nationaljournal.com/congress-...-deal-20121120

"The Federal-Postal Coalition -- a group representing more than two dozen federal employee unions -- pleaded with Congress on Monday to spare their members in any deal related to the "fiscal cliff."

Federal workers, the coalition wrote in a letter, have contributed more than their fair share toward reducing the debt and are the only group that has been targeted so heavily..........................."

The Military is not a Union so the question becomes - "Are they on our side - or their's ?"

That "coalition" is on the side of their dinner plate. Non-postal fed workers are usually the first (involuntary) party selected to show the public that "the Govt is setting the example" with no COLA and/or frozen pay (3 yrs now maybe...). Doesn't bother me personally; not a union member, they've never spoken for me other than to pop a flare on themselves as an obstacle. I get paid good & the work is satisfying. I admit to bristling when seeing 'Postal' co-mingled with other .civ working for .mil since that postal monster has been estimated to have 80% overhead as salary & benefits.

One of the problem I see historically is that people counting overall Fed expenses want to see operations/MILDEPs run as profit-centers, spawning all manner of fashionable downsizing, do-more-with-less, process-improvement horsehockey. What they still don't get (in my view) is that one keeps an Army to do something that is not oriented to showing positive fiscal return when it's used.

Frankly, I wish people would quit bitching about the military - or in this case trying to co-opt them for a 'cause' - and understand that, if you want to be protected you'd better damn well pony up the resolve - collective will if you like - to understand that it costs money you'll never get back in a bank account, it's gone. That includes the part about keeping your word as to what you said you would do "for them who hath borne the battle." Perhaps if that were done there would also be a bit more reticence about when & how they're used. That's my rant & I'm sticking to it. Otherwise as Nicholson's COL Jessup would say, "pick up a rifle and stand a post."

To lump .mil (both military & the civilian tail) in with a Fed-Postal "coalition" is insulting. They should just go away, like a dinosaur, and try not to help so much. A big chunk of the DoD workforce is both mature in years of service & age. They're largely happy to be working - but would take a buy-out while also being aware of the downstream brain-drain that would occur. Happened in '85 - it was fugly because they leave it to the MACOM HQ's how far down to implement. (Rest assured the slots to be cut & $$ savings parachutes start in the head-shed first and those folks damn sure aren't union members.) This will not end well. Maybe TSA or the IRS investigatory arm will get some new programs; this is all about feeding the monster.