Posted on 12/13/2013 8:51:52 AM PST by SkyPilot
Military retirees are outraged over a provision in the two-year budget deal working its way through Congress that would, if passed, cut the one percent cost of living raises of non-disabled retirees under 62 years of age, CNN Money reported Thursday.
A coalition of some 27 groups wrote President Obama and congressional leaders expressing their "strong objection" and "grave concern" over the deal.
The problem, CNN Money explained, is that most military retirees are much younger than private sector retirees.
"They enlist in their 20's and retire in their 40's. Very few stay on till they are 62 -- those who may be lucky enough to escape major injuries at war, or rose to higher echelons in the military system," Jennifer Liberto wrote.
Over the course of 20 years, that cut would compound into a 20 percent decrease in retirement benefits.
The Military Officers Association of America said the cut would cost a retired Army Sergeant First Class about $3,700 per year. Over 20 years, the total loss could balloon to over $80,000.
"While portrayed as a minor change, a 20% reduction in retired pay and survivor benefit values is a massive cut in military career benefits," the groups -- which include the Air Force Sergeants Association, Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America and the Marine Corps League -- said in their letter.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
According to the Washington Post, the screw job was agreed to by the Republicans at the last minute, to placate Democrats who wanted to punish military veterans.
How higher federal-retirement payments ended up in the budget deal
"At the same time, they (Democrats) wanted parity in the treatment of civilian employees and military retirees, many of whom take early retirement and move onto other jobs while they receive full government pensions. With the blessing of top Pentagon officials who have long pressed for relief from personnel-related costs for retirement and health care, Republicans agreed to reduce the retirees’ cost-of-living increase."
Veterans and members of the military are justifiably outraged at this betrayal.
I believe most veterans and military would agree to cuts if they were fair (i.e. the cost of living of other federal entitlements were also sacrificing), or at least if there were hearings about these cuts before enacted. There is no grandfathering either - people who have already served and have retired are being handed this backdoor stab in the back and told to like it.
If Washington is allowed to get away with this, it will be one of the biggest double crosses in American political history.
With all our Federal government shelling out $2B a year for ObamaPhones, it is impossible to swallow the lie that $6 Billion in savings over 10 years is justified by gutting the pensions of men and women who have served 5 or 6 combat tours.
If they vote military pension pay cuts shouldn’t they do the same for thir own?...: )
You funny!
Don’t worry, they will make up for it with a massive increase in Tricare premiums. We have to take away from those who did something to protect the entitlements of those who did nothing.
The deal also allows federal workers to get their first cost-of-living increase in four years. The president proposed a 1 percent raise for January 2014 in the spending plan he released last spring. With no action in Congress to stop the increase –although Republicans pressed to continue the freeze during the budget negotiations that ended this week – Obama has announced that he plans to enact it by default with a presidential order by the end of December.
Of course not. That is why Paul Ryan is such a hypocrite to single out military veterans.
Members of Congress are fully vested in their pensions after only 5 years. They can collect the full benefit at age 62 with only 5 years in Congress, or they can collect at age 50 with 20 years, or any age after 25 years. Given that most members have little trouble being re-elected, their pensions are generous and safe.
If a member of the military even makes it to 20 years without being injured, losing his or her family through divorce at the strain of constant deployments, or without being broken in some way is almost a miracle.
Most veterans do not re-enter the civilian workforce upon retirement to lucrative jobs. Some do, but not the vast majority. Go into your local NAPA or WalMart and take a poll. Many are near middle age, and they find starting a completely new career (especially in the Obama economy) to be as hard as anyone else).
Remember, if Congress is allowed to get away with this, nothing the rest of America considers "a promise" is safe. Not your Medicare, not your Social Security, not anything.
Why don’t we stop pensions for congress? It shouldn’t be a career anyhow.
Your comment is more true than even you imagine.
What has happened is that the welfare state, and the number of "Takers" has exploded in the last 5 years.
Social Security Disability and SNAP Food Stamp programs have gone off like bomb since Obama was elected. Over 1/2 of a Trillion has been spent on unemployment checks in just the last 5 years.
Unemployment benefits cost: $520 billion
Our government is too cowardly to go after the Takers, so it is punishing those who have loyally served.
if somebody thinks they don't have to work anymore after a simple 20 yrs in the military, then that is their problem....
a military job is afterall a JOB...a job job....you go to work, you have breaks, you lunch, you go home...
travel?..yes...most jobs require occasional moves to stay with the company or advance...
risk?...of course...but people in war zones get extra big pay and pay no taxes on that amount either....
and this job also is VOLUNTARY....no one forced you to do it....
I'm all for govt decreasing govt pensions on their employees before any on military, just because my family has a long history of serving its country, but some people are going overboard on the santity of military service as if they were slaves chained to it with no way out, and you could have left the service at any interval....
I say all this with my own husband receiving a smallish air guard pension at this very moment...and thankful we are for it.....
The idea that military retirees retire young and actually retire is mostly myth.
These morons neglect to point out that a military retiree at 38 or in their 40s still have families and financial obligations and that many do not retire by choice but are forced to retire because of cutbacks and related to that, non-promotion to the next rank.
When they retire, they are retired at about 1/3 of what their overall active duty compensation is. Their retirement amount is based on their base pay and for years congress has put “pay raises” into the other compensation payments such as housing allowances and other types of pay and base pay has not risen appreciably over the years. This way, the retirements are kept lower because much of their compensation is classed as other than base pay.
There are very few retirees other than some colonels and general officers who can truly retire on a retirement check that is 1/3 of what they were bringing in. Almost all have to find a civilian job coming off of active duty and these days that is harder than ever.
They won’t cut their own pay raises or that of civilian employees and public unions but they will go for the easy mark.
All bow down before our dictator in chief the communists BLACK Muslim King, for life, Obama.
Indeed. CUT CONGRESSIONAL AND PRESIDENTIAL BENNIES FIRST. . .
And that includes their staffs. . .
Don’t look at it as trimming pensions but putting money into congress’ wallets.
Say what? What's early about retiring at 20? Those are the rules, folks. And this isn't about trimming retirement COLAs for new retirees, this goes all the way back to veterans like my father who retired in 1966.
This ....
Congress should cut their own pay before they cut one single dime to military retired pay.
LOL you just figured that out. Ask the American Indians about the value of a government promise.
I say all this with my own husband receiving a smallish air guard pension at this very moment...and thankful we are for it.....
Maybe you should check with your husband.
When I raised my right hand I was stuck for either 4-6 years at a time. When stop-loss hit the couple of times it did during my career (including when I had my retirement orders in), it didn't really matter whether I was at ETS or not, I was there. (You may also wish to check with our brethren in the sea service...from what I understand, if they are on deployment, they're on deployment...ETS or otherwise).
There are several things that separate being in the military from any civilian job:
Not to say that any of the above would even occur to 95% of people in the military (just as it doesn't to most people who are civilians), but the consequences are dramatically different.
I can't speak for anybody else, but those (and other) factors, along with the substandard pay were things I accepted when I went in the service and each time I re-enlisted. The reason being that I knew that when I hit my 20 (and then some, but that's a different issue), I knew that I had earned something of value.
Having said that, I also understand that this is a unique situation and I am willing to do my part (though I consider my retirement income pay for services that I have already rendered).
So, once they've:
Once all of the above has been accomplished...I'll be more than willing to do my part.
But not until that time.
how can there be 2 year budgets? Isn’t that unconstitutional? oh wait, what am I thinking?
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
If veterans were to start beating the drums for corrupt Congress to put a stop to a bunch of federal spending programs, programs which are beyond the scope of Congress's Section 8-limited powers to tax and spend for, some of these programs decades old, then Congress would arguably have plenty of taxpayer dollars to support military retirees.
Note that I understand that many citizens are dependent upon unconstitutional federal spending programs. But consider that the Constitution doesn't say "yes" or "no" to such "government" programs. What the Constitution does is to clarify that the states, and only the states, have the power to regulate, tax and spend for certain programs, unless the states amend the Constitution to grant Congress the specific power to also do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.