Stop-loss was the reason I retired in 2002 rather than 2001.
As for the government being able to change employment parameters at will...well, it's not quite as simple for retirees. Per 10 USC §8914, I am lawfully retired and per 10 USC §8991, I am to receive the pension that I get (NB: I'd call it "retired pay", but it is accounted for on a 1099-R, regardless of the terminology). Now, yes, they could in theory change that law. And that's where I get into my rant about "commutative justice." I fulfilled my part of the bargain. If Congress changes the law, they have acted fundamentally unjustly and that bodes very poorly for what is left of this country.
I agree with your reforms, but would suggest that the first reform be to outlaw public sector unions completely.
Sadly, the first amendment has been interpreted as to protect the rights of employees to organize. Are there fundamental changes that need to be made? Oh yeah...but even if you got rid of AFGE (and other unions), you'd still have to deal with their replacements...and that is not a trivial task.
Finally, the sense of entitlement that is so apparent in many responses is no more becoming in a civil servant than a welfare recipient.
My only issue is that if you have a position that pays $75k a year, it should pay $75k a year...not $75k a year...unless a person is a military retiree, in which case it pays $60k a year. That is wrong.
If the position is unnecessary, get rid of it. If the person filling the slot is not doing his job, get rid of him. But the position should pay what it pays. Period.
No one (here) wants military retirement pay changed ex post facto. However, military service does not exempt anyone from changes in their current employment. Civil service is not an extension of military service, and prior service should not be a factor either way. (The veteran’s hiring preference is enough.)
I also don’t think anyone is suggesting that military retirement be used as a basis for discrimination. I am not aware of any initiative or directive to reduce civil service pay due to military retirement. Are you saying that this has occurred? I would expect a larger protest if that were the case...
This furlough is a game played by the current administration to get people to rally for continued government growth. The pain is not only real, but it’s intended. Once they get enough support, they will get the increases, but don’t expect that the money will be put to back into DoD.
Remember, you are not their target market; you are the target.