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.
“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.
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.