Skip to comments.Ryan O'Connell and Neil Berman: Military pension politics
Posted on 01/02/2014 12:06:48 PM PST by SkyPilot
The passage of a bipartisan budget surprised many after the Washington D.C. fiasco of 2013. But having both parties working together does not mean the interests of all are served. No one knows that better than the men and women in, and retired from, our military. They are the most recent victim of budget cuts.
What the authors of the budget call pension "reform," is simply a cut in military pension benefits for those retired and those currently serving in our armed forces.
The authors are quick to argue that the cut is small a 1 percent reduction in the annual cost-of-living increase. But the men and women in the armed forces are outraged and we should be too. Their employer has performed a bait-and-switch.
Eighteen-year-old men and women are walking into recruiting offices across the nation, entering into contracts whereby they are to serve and protect our freedom in return for which they will receive a pension at a particular rate upon retirement. What is not explained to them is that their employer can breach this contract without fear of punishment, whereas if service members breach the contract they face criminal charges.
As a society, we pride ourselves on rewarding the men and women who risk their necks on our behalf. The firefighters and police officers in our communities have amazing benefits. This in part is due to strong unions insuring that the state does not attack their pensions.
There are no unions for servicemen and women. There are no lobby groups. And therefore, service benefits are always low hanging fruit for pension "reformers."
(Excerpt) Read more at montereyherald.com ...
They have a poll 1/2 down on the right hand side. Freep it if you wish. It is already overwhelmingly in disagreement to the USA Today editorial board, and the comments to the editorial are incredibly negative.
Let’s see now...
Imagine I retired with a miitary pension payment that now pays me $1000 per month.
My pension is indexed for inflation, and the inflation index we use now assumes a heavy charge for real estate cost inflation. That inflation index for pensions is now 3%. If we use that 3% index, each of my monthly retirement checks next year will be $1030.
It has been proposed that the inflation “index” for military pensions be reduced by 1%, from 3% to 2%, because most military retirees do NOT buy new real estate every single year. If we use that 2% “inlation index”, my monthly retirement checks next year will be $1020.
If my monthly pension check increases from $1000 to $1020, that $20 increase is NOT a decrease.
If my monthly pension check increases from $1000 to $1030, that $30 increase is NOT a decrease.
Get that? An INCREASE is not a DECREASE.
Let’s not be razzle-dazzled whenever a White House flunky uses BAD arithmetic to try to demoralize us conservatives by falsely claiming that WE are hurting veterans...
Fun With Statistics!
But, of course, it isn't a "1 percent" reduction. If the cost of living increase were to be reduced by 1% (one penny on the dollar), some would grumble, but no one would be outraged.
The actual matter is that if inflation is deigned to be 2% in a given year and the increase is reduced to 1%, then it's a 50% reduction in the annual cost-of-living increase. Hey, but we all know that there's no inflation.
Right? I mean, that's what Ryan's aides must have told him. Otherwise, I can't imagine what he's doing.
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.