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. Clearly health costs are a much higher percentage than they used to be, but retirement benefits are apparently wrapped up in the personnel costs figure.
So we can’t tell whether retirement costs are growing as fast, for example, as health care costs. In other words, the graph doesn’t say anything about total benefits vs. total active duty military pay.
The military was bearing half the cost of the sequester. 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.
And yes, the cut was hitting retirees who were still working age, most of whom probably actually do get jobs upon retirement somewhere around age 40. The disabled were exempt, and the full pay as though no COLA cut had ever occurred was restored at age 65.
Ryan obviously stepped on a land mine in taking this on, but it’s his and the military’s opinion that personnel costs, particularly benefits need to be brought under control. That an extremely modest proposal like this is untenable politically indicates that if benefits are out of control they will remain out of control for the foreseeable future.
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!
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?
“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.