Posted on 01/20/2014 4:39:27 PM PST by SkyPilot
Why trimming military pensions irks this deficit-hawk veteran.
With a $1.1 trillion budget wending its way through Congress and likely headed for President Obamas desk, officials in Washington are no doubt patting themselves on the back for a job well done.
Heres who wont be cheering the news: American veterans and military retirees and their families. Tucked away in this massive spending package is a provision that chops away at the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) raises for military retirees and family survivors, in order to save an estimated $6 billion over the next ten years.
You could argue that I, as a deficit hawk, should cheer this fiscal reform: Cmon, Pete, youre always going on about cutting spending, and heres a spending cut! Why arent you happy? And its true, spending reform is hard to come by in todays profligate Washington, and the case could be made that we should celebrate any minor victory in that fight. But whats galling about this specific spending cut is that it achieves so little, while breaking faith with veterans and sending a discouraging message to rank-and-file members of the military. Washington politicians cant be bothered to make even the most minor adjustments to Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare but cutting back those who have served our nation honorably in uniform, or the families who have lost a loved one in combat? No problem. Its an assault on the dignity and pride of our military personnel, for so very little in savings.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Korb is also being paid off by the left wing Socialist Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, again by Soros, "whose aim is to redirect 15% of the military's budget to social programs like education, healthcare, job training, humanitarian relief, renewable energies"
Since its inception, the Center has gathered a group of high-profile senior fellows, including Lawrence Korb Also, Admiral (ret) Ryan blew every "argument" that Korb had out of the water during an appearance on PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june14/pensions_01-02.html
Notice how agitated Korb gets when he is confronted with the facts. Notice also that Korb quickly changes the subject from pensions to attacking military health care.
Korb also is spearheading pro-homosexual issues vis a vis the military, and has already caused untold damage to the military by peddling immorality by his past "victories" on this issue.
100% correct.
Once again, incorrect.
The historical average has been approximately one third, and that is what they are today.
You can call me one, but your writing proves that you’re one.
Korb is either uninformed or lying.
The 50% at 20 years was the rule in 1970 when I first enlisted. And it had been ongoing for many years before that.
I remember when leaving to go to college the talk I got from the reenlistment NCO who pointed out the retirement, the health coverage, the education.
Korb is nuts....there are very few "when most vets joined" who predate me. And I KNOW what it was then.
I can’t believe they complain about the personnel costs.
It’s like saying “We’re complaining that we have to have soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. We’d be much better off without them!”
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.