No.
Not hardly.
I am calling you an obamabot because you want to violate contracts, while not dealing with the problem.
You get rid of government waste by:
There is a ton that could be done to shrink the federal government by about 75% -- and I'm not exaggerating with that percentage.
But breaking a contract with somebody else who has already fulfilled his portion of the agreement is not one of those ways. That is just dishonorable.
Only a socialist would support that kind of dishonor.
You are horrified at the prospect of Obama confiscating your 401k or IRA...and promising to give you a federally-funded pension in its place, right?
If not, you should be.
Another example is if you agree to provide 100 widgets to the government for $100,000. You deliver the widgets. The government says, "well, we changed our minds. We are only going to pay you $25,000." And your costs in building the widgets...which you've already built...were $50,000. Again, you'd be horrified, right?
There is ZERO moral difference between that and telling somebody that they served 20 years but don't need their pension.
I have had prospective employers try to offer me below market rate for my services...using the fact that I draw a military pension as part of the justification for the lowball offer. I have told them where they could shove their lowball offer. (I remember one who corrected the offer and I still told them to screw themselves, as I wouldn't work for an outfit that had such ethics)
But if I have earned an E-7 retirement and my employer happens to be the US government, there should be no difference than if my employer was Domino's Pizza...if I have a position, I should get paid what that position is worth. If I'm not working to the requirements of that position, well, then fire me for non-performance. But don't try saying "you don't need the money because you are already drawing a military retirement".
Otherwise, it sounds like you're saying, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." And we all know who said that.
If I mischaracterized what you were trying to say, I apologize.
The social security/medicare recipients use the same argument.
Those agreements WILL be broken because it is mathematically impossible to pay for all the unfunded obligations.
The concept of bankruptcy was developed to deal with debts that can't be repaid.
A creditor can go on forever about what he thinks morals are and how he is "owed" a debt that can't possibly be repaid.
You forged a contract with a government that lied about its ability to pay.
Most people are going to get hosed in some form, and those who demand to be made 100% whole are going to have to use force when the mathematics break the legal structures down.
here’s the difference, marko, Domino’s has to run at a profit, government doesn’t. So why don’t you quit being a government hack and get a real job
Having been in the Military since 1986, it seems to me that the Government has the power to change employment parameters at will. If not, could you please explain to me the term “at the convenience of the government?” That was the operative phrase that was used when I was involuntarily extended in a critical career field twice—once after having attending my separation briefing!
No one owes you or me anything beyond what was explicitly written in your original contract and even that is subject to Government whims. If you have been furloughed, you are not a contract employee. And even if you were, that would not guarantee full employment. As a DoD contractor, I do not have any guarantee of continued employment.
Civil Service is, in no sense, contract employment; it is an at-will agreement. Because you hired on with the most paternalistic, nepotistic system in history, you should not be surprised when daddy changes his mind.
No one is suggesting that military retirement is the issue. Double-dipping has been almost eliminated in the true sense. Most civil service employees are decent folks, but the system is devoid of any relationship to reality.
Despite this, if you implemented your program, you would be “violating the contract” (in your vernacular) with all the affected workers. I agree with your reforms, but would suggest that the first reform be to outlaw public sector unions completely. That would eliminate the largest barrier to reform.
Finally, the sense of entitlement that is so apparent in many responses is no more becoming in a civil servant than a welfare recipient.