Paul Ryan’s military pay gambit backfires

Politico ^ | 12 Feb 14 | Juana Summers

[SkyPilot]

Under December’s budget deal, working-age military retirees — some of whom retire with pensions in their 40s after 20 years of service — would see those pensions grow at a slower pace. Their annual cost-of-living adjustments would be pegged to the rate of inflation minus 1 percentage point. But once they turned 62, they’d go back to receiving cost-of-living adjustments pegged to the full rate of inflation.

The provision wouldn’t kick in until late next year, a delay Ryan says was designed to allow the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to consider alternative proposals for reining in the military’s personnel costs. In other words, it was meant to force the committees to confront the toxic issue after years of dragging their feet. But the backlash could make it even more difficult to deal with growing personnel costs, which Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has said threaten to crowd out spending on other priorities.

Pentagon officials had declined to offer full-throated support for the pension proposal in the budget deal, urging Congress to grandfather current service members and veterans so that only future recruits would be affected. The bill approved Wednesday does just that.

From an economic and national security perspective, “it makes sense” to cut benefits for service members, said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. From a political perspective, “it doesn’t.”

“Other than Paul Ryan, nobody has stepped up to make that case,” he said.

The charged issue sparked strong emotional reactions on both sides, with advocacy groups for service members accusing lawmakers of breaking faith with those in uniform. Leading the charge is the Military Officers Association of America, the nation’s largest association of military officers.

[chicagolady]

Traitor Paul Ryan...a Useless idiot!

[xzins]

The scripture below is a time when King David was moved to realize how precious is the sacrifice of his warriors, in this case, his SpecOps Warriors:

2 Samuel 23: 13 During harvest time, three of the thirty chief men came down to David at the cave of Adullam, while a band of Philistines was encamped in the Valley of Rephaim. 14 At that time David was in the stronghold, and the Philistine garrison was at Bethlehem. 15 David longed for water and said, "Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!" 16 So the three mighty men broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out before the LORD. 17 "Far be it from me, O LORD, to do this!" he said. "Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?" And David would not drink it. Such were the exploits of the three mighty men.

Lord God, in the same way that King David realized that the sacrifice of warriors for the nation was a gift fit only for You, our Almighty God, so let us realize that such a sacrifice should not be an occasion for us to take credit or to earn personal glory. In the same way as David made their gift of water to him into a gift to You, an offering made by pouring, so let us realize that the blood poured out on our behalf by our brave warriors is not to the credit of presidents, politicians, or generals. These leaders are mere humans, and such a gift is too precious for the likes of men.

Help us to see the Divine Blessing that is ours in the sacrifice of our warriors on our behalf, on behalf of our nation.

You have always been a God who saw the love of Your Son's sacrifice reflected in the sacrifice of soldiers. You are the God of the warriors Joshua, David, the faithful Centurion, the Centurion Cornelius, and so many other warriors who have found grace in Your sight.

Protect these warriors of our nation from the evil designs of politicians who would bask in the warrior's renown while stealing from them their sustenance.

We thank you, Lord God, that you have answered the cries of those who have stood in the gap in this struggle against self-serving leaders, against those who would violate their own promises.

We also thank You for our warriors' sacrifice for our nation. And, on all battlefields where our troops guard and watch to keep us safe, we pray they be victorious.

In Jesus' Name we pray. Amen

[Jet Jaguar]

Amen.

[Alas Babylon!]

Bull! It’s all about retention. Forget the emotions.

Listen. This is a missive but everyone should be aware of these truths!!! Read on...

The military cannot run on just 18-22 year olds. It NEEDS seasoned leadership and people with more than apprentice and journeyman skills in many areas. So it “recruits” within its own ranks, to keep certain officers and NCOs in service beyond their enlistments with financial and other incentives.

On the other hand, the military lifestyle, especially during tense international times, whether full scale global war or small guerilla conflicts, is hard and sometimes even risky to the living. Because thinking men would chose to avoid death (in most cases) they sometimes need to be forced to do things that they wouldn’t do on their own, and the military has orders and punishments for not following them far more draconian than civilian life. It is what it is, and not for everyone.

Even those who may enjoy it at first will eventually get tired of it, and certainly not re-enlisting after 4 honorable years of service has no shame, and those who do so are still veterans and can be proud of their service.

Still, the military NEEDS some to stay in longer, to train others, to care for the younger, less experienced, to give orders, those whose knowledge and experiences grow over the years that the military cannot do without.

Because doing without has costs! Huge costs. There are FAR more civilian contractors than ever working for the military. But you cannot order them to do something that they think will get them killed, and you have to pay them a LOT!

Another thing almost no one considers: What is the cost of losing? I mean losing a war, having your country occupied, your people killed, enslaved, your stuff destroyed—homes, factories, cities.

The US military has been blessed with the ability to win almost all of their wars. No one can say what the exact formula was for each victory, but there is a constant. A superior to almost any other nation’s NCO corps, the encouragement of smart, innovative officers, and robust, skilled civilian workforce to draw men from.

You cannot have a superior NCO corps from 18-22 year olds. You have to have people re-enlist and move up the ranks to keep them in for 20+ years. However, the retirement that is allowed at the 20-30 year mark means senior ranks will always need to be filled, which keeps promotions keep coming. You only give promotions to those who continue to excel and you develop a positive feedback system by always having the best rise up through the ranks, further strengthening the NCO corps, which is vitally important to being a successful military (meaning one which wins, cause one loss and you are screwed!). Moreover, to push people up through the ranks, the military has requirements to either make a certain rank or be forced out—without retirement, that is; nothing. Not even a gold watch.

Many, many years ago, I enlisted because I was tired of school, wanted an adventure, and liked the idea of a physical and mental challenge. I was 18.

After 3 years, I was invited to reenlist. I used to say I would NEVER be a lifer. I dreamt about getting out and starting a career and then getting money—the full American dream.

They made me promises. The retirement at 20 was a HUGE one. So was FREE medical care for LIFE. But you know what did it? Getting to go overseas and a promotion. And while I never told anyone, I was still having a blast.

But I never thought the promises made to me were falsehoods or lies. I believed them. I still do. The government made a promise to me in writing: If I would stay in, reenlisting every four years, and I kept up my integrity, behavior and performance, they would promote me, and I would, if I could keep going for at least 20 years, they would allow me to retire and collect at last half my base pay for the rest of my life.

It was a contract. But It wasn’t all in my favor. The government got the better days of my life, during a time when I could have been out amongst making my fortune, getting far more financial compensation during all those years. I completely fulfilled my end of the contract; every T crossed, every i dotted. I expect the government to keep its promise in the same manner.

So, my final line on this is you renege on the deal and can keep my money, but give me my twenty-two years back!

[SkyPilot]

There were more military personnel in earlier years, as we have become a much smaller force. But healthcare costs are still roughly 1/3rd of the total DoD budget. You are correct on the sequester! the DoD has to “pay for” 50% of all the cuts despite being 17 to 18% of spending. That is grossly unfair. The sequester relief is small, but welcomed. However, Ryan's attempted argument that the only way we can give pilots more fuel to fly or Marines more ammunition to shoot is through their own retirement checks is not only laughable, but sophistry. Lastly, not all disabled veterans were protected in the omnibus bill passed last month. Only those military who were medically retired early (referred to as Chapter 61 retirees) were exempted. Some are disabled, some are not. But all VA rated disabled who served their service length commitments were screwed over...even if they were combat injured Purple Heart recipients who are now disabled. They only protection hope for them is this bill that now goes to Obama.

[SkyPilot]

Perfect! Thank you for that. May God hear your prayer, receive our gratitude, and bless our warriors and their families.

. The prayer of a righteous man is both powerful and effective.

Thank you again.

[ZULU]

Paul Ryan is an overrated idiot.

[xzins]

By making a very modest adjustment to the COLA Ryan was able to restore some military funding for troops still on duty. That has to count for something.

You are so wrong throughout your post, but I just put the above in as an example.

1. Ryan did nothing of the sort. He DID NOT cut COLA so troops still on duty would have funding restored. First, military spending increased and was not cut. Only the COLA was cut. And the sequester funding did not go to "troops". It went to R&D and Operations....in other words, to generals and mission costs and foreign so-called leaders for their graft and corruption.

2. The entire argument that personnel costs have risen is sleight of hand. They go all the way back to 2001 to arrive at that conclusion. And guess what they did throughout those years -- and even this article admits it -- the increased pay because it was far less than civilian pay and they were losing people. So they INCREASED PAY to catch back up with where it should be. You can't intentionally increase pay and then complain a few years later that pay has increased faster than elsewhere... when you think people have forgotten it was you who did it in the first place. That is entirely deceitful and spiteful.

3. Retire at 40 and get a 2nd job? The average retiree is at the E-7 pay grade, is about 45 years old and gets about 21,000 a year. They are trained in military skills that don't translate well to the civilian market, and they are at an age that doesn't translate well to getting hired, and they are retiring in a time of record joblessness. $21,000 is about HALF of an average income, iirc, and it's not far from the poverty line. Nor is it the whole story...it is taxed for Soc Security, Fed, Med, State, and local. Plus, the veteran, if married, must pay SBP, to insure his family isn't destitute if he dies. Furthermore, he is being stripped of his full medical coverage, even though many are partially disabled after years of service. More of his funds are taken for using his already earned medical care.

Now, answer me this: If you contract to paint the building of your local bank for $2000, you complete the job, you go to them for your ALREADY EARNED pay, and they say, "Sorry, but we've changed the deal to $1500." what would you think of the integrity of that bank?

Ryan and his treacherous cronies made a deal with troops, and now that those troops have done their part, Ryan swoops in and says, "Oh by the way....we're changing the deal."

This COLA cut costs 600 million a year. Last year the government spent 2.2 billion on ObamaPhones as certified by the Wall Street Journal.

Is it more right to cut those who've ALREADY done the job you hired them to do, or is it more right to cut the toys you give Miss Thang so she can gossip at a distance with Mr Thang about what the neighbors are doing?

[KeyLargo]

[Video] Decorated Vietnam Vet Told to Get Rid of His Guns Because His Wife Manages His Finances
February 12 2014
by Dan Cannon
Share This Post

This isn’t the first incident we’ve heard about veterans with PTSD getting a VA letter that effectively strips them of their Second Amendment rights. However, most of the stories we’ve heard have had to do with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

Pat Kirby is a highly decorated combat veteran who served in Vietnam. Recently, he received a letter telling him that because his wife manages their finances and he suffers from PTSD that he is being deemed “incompetent” and is being stripped of his Second Amendment rights.

The letter tells Kirby if he handles or owns a firearm he could face fines or even jail time.

However, Pat Kirby’s wife has always managed their finances. In fact, she’s managed them ever since he got back from Vietnam.

Keep in mind, Kirby has dealing with PTSD for decades and he obviously has his life under control, however only recently has the VA determined that he isn’t fit to own firearms.

Kirby, in the above interview, says that he still loves his country, but has never liked his politicians. He makes no distinction between Republicans and Democrats.

The saddest part, to me, of these situations with veterans is that there are likely many veterans, who could certainly use the services of the VA, but may be afraid to take advantage of them because they are afraid of being deemed “incompetent”.

The way these determinations are made need a serious, serious overhaul.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video-decorated-vietnam-vet-told-to-turn-in-his-guns-or-face-arrest-because-his-wife-manages-his-finances/

[Aurorales]

Ditto what you said!

I would also like to add,

After my husband’s 20 will the government give back:

My husband’s good, healthy back?

My son’s missed time with his loving father?

My tears shed on the countless docks saying goodbye?

My time spent worrying, crying, hand wringing and praying for his his safety and return?

This list is endless. Paul Ryan can go to hell for all I care. This includes any politician who thought this broken deal was necessary.

[Mr Rogers]

“The graph of personnel costs showing 1/3 of military spending goes to personnel costs and benefits doesn’t really indicate whether or not there’s a problem with benefits out of control.”

Given that retirement benefits for current retirees were PREPAID IN FULL (since 1984), and since the pension fund is in the black and not expected to ever go in the red, retirement benefits were NOT the cause of any out of control costs. Your current tax dollars do not pay for current retirees.

[SFC Chromey]

One point rarely addressed by these lunatics that talk about these “working-age” retirees, is that most of them have to start at the bottom rung and work their ways up again in whatever industry they decide to enter.

Some may end up with federal contractor work similar to what they had done before they retired, but that is a small percentage of the total.

[SkyPilot]

One point rarely addressed by these lunatics that talk about these “working-age” retirees, is that most of them have to start at the bottom rung and work their ways up again in whatever industry they decide to enter.

This is very true. As you mentioned, while some retired military are highly trained and can use those skills towards other careers (cops, fire fighters, pilots, medics, engineers, air traffic controllers, logisticians, nurses, contract lawyers, etc). But many possess warfighting skills that do not easily translate into civilian jobs, especially in this economy.

Certain members of the media have simply been dripping with venom per their coverage of this issue the last 3 months. Many speak of "retirement at age 38" - as if all retirees entered when they were 18 years of age. Most enlisted are in their mid-40s by the time they reach retirement. Officers, even those who were commissioned at age 22 or 23, will typically serve 25 years and be in their mid-40s or early 50s.

Recruiters are not breaking down the doors of most 50 year olds today to given them multiple job offers.

As I mentioned before, the few (17%) of do make it to at least 20 years do not come through the experience without some scars, physical or otherwise.

Many military veterans are wounded, but many others have blown knees or battered limbs that simply was a consequence of the job. Some caught diseases from some 3rd world hell hole. I know people who worked through the Tsunami relief effort who contracted horrible diseases that they are still contending with. Tens of thousands of veterans have lost some or most of their hearing. Some unfortunate veterans have broken minds or spirits, or have struggled with the monster of addiction.

On top of all of that are the painful memories. Some have seen horrible, horrible things. People mention friends dying, but dealing with death on such a first person basis even when it involved the enemy or the civilian population is a nightmare all by itself.

The splinter in the heart that haunts many veterans is the price their families paid for their service.

Some of my most painful memories are not what I experience in terms of hardship, but watching those I love suffer. Tears when I told them we had to move again, away from their new found friends or school. Or the day before Christmas eve that I packed my bags to head to the air base as I left (yet again), and my young daughters each held onto one of my legs and flightsuit pockets, sobbing and pleading uncontrollably, as I tried to walk out the door with tears in m eyes - knowing I would not be home for over a year.

Paul Ryan can pay me and my fellow warriors back for all of that anytime he wants. I won't hold my breath.

[Alas Babylon!]

Forget the plight of the retiree for just a moment, as that is a emotional argument, not a conservative one. Not that I’m not saying its invalid, just move to the legal argument.

In my humble opinion, we need to keep our focus on the fact that the government made a CONTRACT with us that they’re trying — or were trying— to change on us AFTER our end of said contract was fulfilled.

Feel sorry for retirees or not, we had a promise in writing. Are COLAs part of that? I would argue they are, because if it explicitly said in the contract that they were not then that would have influenced many of us at a far earlier time NOT to make the career commitment.

If any of us had failed before retirement to do everything that was required of us we would have got the boot—no retirement. I had a good friend at the SNCO Academy in Alabama—we were both attending—who went down to Tyndall AFB in Florida on the weekend and got caught going through the gate with a BA of .218. AND he rarely drank. But that one time, he was with old friends at the golf course clubhouse after 18 holes and tied one too many on being merry and reminiscing.

He was booted out at 22 years for that. No one felt too sorry for him—he broke the rules. BUT that is the punishment for not holding up your end of the contract.

What penalty for the government to renege on the SAME contract?

Despite Ryan and Murry’s stupid deal, and the House and Senate rolling it back, how can the government get away with essentially breaking the legal contract with us? NO ONE in the whole argument has yet to explain or argue THAT.

[TexasGator]

“Forget the plight of the retiree for just a moment, as that is a emotional argument, not a conservative one. Not that I’m not saying its invalid, just move to the legal argument.

In my humble opinion, we need to keep our focus on the fact that the government made a CONTRACT with us that they’re trying — or were trying— to change on us AFTER our end of said contract was fulfilled.

Feel sorry for retirees or not, we had a promise in writing. Are COLAs part of that? I would argue they are, because if it explicitly said in the contract that they were not then that would have influenced many of us at a far earlier time NOT to make the career commitment.”

Apparently you missed the part where it said it would only apply to new recruits. Also, it it is NOT in the contract, it is NOT in the contract. Basic law.

[SkyPilot]

You raise great points. I am not a lawyer, but I'll weigh in.

What you are saying is true in a moral and political sense, but if a lawsuit ever made its way to the Supreme Court, I believe military retirees would lose the argument that earned retirement is a right that cannot be legally violated.

Even though the two are not in any way comparable (again, in a moral and political sense), the courts would probably use Fleming vs. Nestor (1960) as the precedent to cite that since the Congress can change the rules of the game. In that case, the court determined that Congress deny Social Security benefits to anyone, even though the injured party had contributed to the program and held up their end of the social, political, and legal "contract."

In fact, the court said explicitly that Congress can withhold or change the rules for Social Security any time it wishes.

Again, even though military retirement is vastly, vastly different from Social Security, the precedent was set decades ago for Congress to drive a semi-truck through that loophole.

The question is, will they try again? My guess is not right away. But they will try soon enough.

The Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission has delayed its report from February to May of 2015. This commission is a rigged game. It was originally charted, by law! to grandfather current retirees and those serving from pension changes. We saw how much "authority" the Ryan-Murray backstabbers gave that. Further, President Obama, General Dempsey (Chairman of the JCS), and then SECDEF Panetta all said that current retirees would not be affected by the changes - and when Ryan-Murray violated this, the silence was deafening from Washington.

But, when it serves their purposes for political cover, all Washington players who want to screw the military will point to whatever finding the commission recommends, the same as they do with BRAC findings.

We won the battle - a MAJOR battle. The war isn't over. We will see assaults on TRICARE very soon, especially since ObamaCare is bringing ruin to millions of Americans. The war on commissaries has already started. I expect further screw jobs from Obama, Hagel, and Congress. Watch for a call to eliminate concurrent receipt for VA disability and regular retirement pensions. Watch for a call to eliminate civilian retirement for any retired military person who works for the Federal government. Watch for a call to eliminate some Social Security for those who receive a military pension. The CBO has either already proposed all of these, or is mulling them over in a back room.

[Alas Babylon!]

Thanks for that info. I was aware that if it wasn’t in writing, the government didn’t have to follow it, as in the lawsuit Colonel Day lost in the Supreme Court over medical care for life...

Now as a matter of retention; isn’t anyone listening? Because the troops sure as hell are! Having been in during the Hollow Military of the 1970s, I see the same stupid penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions being made once more. Given the adage you get what you pay for, what do these idiots think they’ll get out of the military if they rape only the military retiree, veteran and even active duty forces to save a few bucks?

Like I said before, WHAT is the cost of LOSING a war? Do they think the Chinese are going to honor their contracts, rights and care about their happiness?

It’s like not paying your insurance cause you’re a few bucks short... AND then disaster strikes. Too late!

Maybe we have to let it all burn to the ground before people get even a small clue again. America has never really lost a war—except for the South. But that doesn’t mean we’re ever going to in some future when defenses are neglected.

[MSF BU]

Korb is an interesting character. Certainly he was one of the Reagan Administrations poorer appointment selections. It is interesting given the plethora of combat veterans why he was selected for anything.

[MSF BU]

Good for you. I grew up listening to guys who wished they had done that, or at least some variant of it.

[MSF BU]

Increases in foodstamps, the Piggford settlements, etc. They have theirs, although I will concede that they will never be satisfied.