Posted on 12/11/2013 4:26:26 PM PST by robowombat
December 11, 2013, 05:36 pm Veterans groups angry over budget deal By Jeremy Herb
Veterans groups are lashing out at the congressional budget deal for targeting military retirement accounts to help pay for spending increases.
The Military Coalition, a group of 33 uniformed services and veterans organizations, is sent a letter to House and Senate leaders, as well as President Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, expressing their anger with the deal.
“This radical proposal basically kills the grandfather-concern addressed by both Congress and the administration and actually eliminates the appropriate review process failing to consider long-term readiness and retention outcomes in order to meet an arbitrary deadline so that Congress can go home for the holidays,” the groups wrote. They are outraged that veterans and members of the military are footing $6 billion of the cost of the bill under the agreement, which lowers the cost-of-living adjustment for retirement accounts of service members younger than 62.
The deal reached by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and Senate Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash) lowered the cost-of-living adjustment for retirement accounts to 1 percent below inflation, which will fully take effect in 2016.
The veterans groups are trying to quickly mobilize opposition among their members over including military retirement in the budget deal, which provided $63 billion of sequester relief over the next two years in exchange — including restoration of $32 billion in automatic cuts to the Pentagon — for $85 billion in deficit reduction.
“We are not happy about it at all,” said Mike Barron, deputy director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA). “This was a backdoor deal in the worst kind of way.”
In their letter to congressional leadership, the groups say the retirement changes “will have a devastating financial impact for those who retire at the 20 year point by reducing retired pay by nearly 20 percent at age 62.”
“While portrayed as a minor change, a 20 percent reduction in retired pay and survivor benefit values is a massive cut in military career benefits and an egregious breach of faith,” the groups wrote.
“Ending the harmful effects of sequestration is a top priority for our nation’s security and military readiness, but to tax the very men and women who have sacrificed and served more than others is simply a foul,” they said.
The veterans groups said they were surprised by the last-minute inclusion of military retirement in the budget deal, and complained that the changes did not stem from the House and Senate Armed Services or Veterans Committees.
“During the press conference, they were talk of all the stuff they left off the table. I’m wondering why veterans and military retirees were on that table,” said Tom Tarantino, chief policy officer for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
“This will negatively impact the military, and eventually impact national security,” he said. “How are you going to retain high quality people to spend a career in the military if they think their benefits will get cut?”
The veterans groups also complained that the commission enacted in the 2013 Defense authorization bill to study military retirement had specifically removed a “fast-tracking” rule to change military retirement benefits.
Several groups are trying to get their members involved to express opposition to including the military retirement reduction in the deal. Both Barron and Tarantino pointed to the 1980s attempt to cut military retirement benefits, known as REDUX, which was enacted by Congress but later repealed.
“VFW calculates that this will have a devastating impact on retirement benefits for retirees and survivors and jeopardizes the future value of military career benefits, and adversely effects recruitment, retention and our national security,” the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) wrote in an alert to its members.
Still, it’s unclear what the organizations can do to remove the military retirement provisions from the budget deal, which the House plans to vote on Thursday.
The $6 billion portion from military retirement is a relatively small part of the $85 billion in total deficit reduction to pay for the bill. There is also another $6 billion taken out of retirement accounts for federal workers, down from an initial proposal of $20 billion.
— This story was updated at 6:03 p.m.
So if the COLA is 0%, as was the case for a couple years recently, can I assume we’d see a -1% adjustment to our retainer pay?
What is a COLA deduction?
Ranting such as you do does no good. This particular element in a bad budget bill really stinks. However, incoherent ranting such as you engage in is both useless and pretty stupid.
“...Federal pension COLA calculations have already been using the minus1% deflator for about twenty years....”
*******************************************************************
As I understand it, it’s only for certain pensions (FERS??) and only in certain years.
Yeah, it’s odd isn’t it? The intelligence quotient on FR is quite questionable when it comes to these kinds of topics.
The tone is about the same as telling a teenage girl who’s a fan of some boy band that they suck.
Thanks, I have to dig into this, hut up a recent copy of Fed Almanac which should have a description of the COLA setting process.
No matter the amount of incoherent and garbage verbiage you spew, you can't change the facts, or the math.
But to answer your one question to me:
“What is a COLA deduction?”
There is none.
Yet.
But since I am one of those of the minority who does actually pay Federal income taxes, as opposed to those like you, who appear to merely subsist on them, I do think if you get a COLA increase, I should receive an equal amount of tax decrease.
If the “cost of living” has increased for you, on your taxpayer funded fixed income, where do you think the money comes for your raise?
Do you really think the taxes on my working pay and raises, if I even get one, is enough to pay for both MY OWN cost of living increases, and also yours?
I'm to be forced to swim ever harder upstream everyday, so you can keep comfortably floating downstream?
No thanks!
You are a fool.
Eventually, all people like you, always out themselves for what they actually are.
Patience is a virtue....
This is five minutes of my life I won’t get back, and you probably aren’t worth it.
What I have is limited patience with self righteous blame mongers.
The choices you have made have taken you to where you are. The responsibility for your problems is yours. You can either accept that or spend the rest of what time you have blame mongering and scapegoating. Psychological transference and self pity seasoned with sanctimony and self righteousness are two of the cheapest and most addictive and finally most destructive narcotics that exist. You can either cultivate your garden of grievances against who or whatever you wish to blame for your problems or failures in life or move on and accept what is. But as Irvin Cobb observed ‘a capacity for self pity is one of the last things a woman surrenders.
A “cut” to a “never guaranteed automatic percentage increase” in addition to the agreed amount, is not a retirement cut.
Your retirement pay has not been cut.
Future automatic COLA raises to your retirement pay has been cut by 1%.
Government math in play to rile everyone up, and set people against each other.
But thanks for playing, and outing yourself fully.
I never said I had any complaint, if you ever bothered to actually read what i posted. Those with a gripe are career enlisted military. You are the one with the endless bile spewing. Anyway i am done with you sou r and dissatisfied woman.
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.