Leaderboard

OK - the 20 year retirement is designed as a retainer,not a retirement per se. The idea is that by taking the retirement check, you place yourself in line for reactivation should the nation require it. Doesn't happen but it can. So why 20 years? Well, for this we go back to the reason fora young service. When 20 year career was developed, there was a lot more gruntwork requiring young, very fit service members able to keep up with the demandsof infantry, flight in un or poorly pressurized cockpits, hot bunking on ships,etc. Since WWII we have moved more into a technologically service orientedforce that requires more brain power and less brute power (some career fields exemptedof course - infantry, tactical aviation, special ops, etc.). This means that servicemembers are not only more valuable longer but are more valuable over time(experience). So while a 42 year old infantryman may be struggling to keep up with a 22 year old infantryman, a 42 year old acquisition specialist is running circles around a 22 year old newbie just out of tech school. And will be for the foreseeable future. So in essence, the need for a young force is less important now than it was in 1950. In some cases (acquisition,intelligence, logistics, maintenance, etc.) older is probably better and by age 42, the service member in question is likely at the peak of his or her proficiency and therefore a very valuable commodity. The other reason for the 20 year retirement deals with the military culture andhow our careers evolve. We generally move every 3-4 years and have a few remotes/six month deployments and several PCS schools (e.g. PME, Tech School, UPT, RTU, etc.) over a 2 - 24 year period. This means the typical military family (member and spouse) cannot generally build deep roots in any community they live in. Even if they buy a house they live there for only 3-4 years then it's on the road again. For spouses this means no second careers. Even spouses with portable jobs (e.g. teachers, nurses) have a hard time maintaining a career as they move from one location to another. As a result, by age 38-44 the typical military family (member, spouse and now probably 1-3 teenage kids) will have less than 3-4 years on station when the member retires. Now contrast that with the neighbour who has lived in the same house and worked in the same area for the last 20-22 years. That family unit probably has paid down their house significantly, both spouses probably work and have viable careers and the family has established lifelong friends and connections. This means the military family at age 42 is essentially starting where the civilian family did 22 years earlier. And you don't get those years back. The military member may find work paying the equivalent to his or her former position but not the seniority. In this case, the military member is starting at the bottom. For the spouse its worse. He or she has been off the career track for 20-22 years and now must start over competing against other candidates more than a generation younger. So you have a new house (with a full 30 year mortgage), two new jobs (one at absolute beginning status) and live in a community that maybe wonderful but is alien and will take years to really integrate into. Who would do this to themselves voluntarily? The answer is "the military" and primarily for the retirement. The immediate support of the retirement check and medical benefits is a cushion allowing for an easier transition to the civilian world. While you don't get rich off of retirement it will generally pay the house payment, the utilities and the car payment. After that, all you need to do is cover food - and youcould do that as a greeter at Wal-Mart. Not that most military would do this... It is however an option. So if retirement was taken off the table with a general promise of less money at age 57 but not before the rank and file are going to bail. If they go through with this 10 year retirement at 57 it will be even worse. There is no incentive to stay past 10 years since you are vested and you won't get your money earlier anyway. In fact staying the extra 10 years would be devastating financially as the member could have made far more and paid off more of his or her house/cars etc. in that next 10 years. Simple economics... So if the committee wants to really change the retirement system, they really need to change what a military career is. For this, we need to discard the notion of a need for a young service. We also need to discard the "up or out" policies we have now. In short, like many of our allies a military career is something you do for life, not for 20 years before finding something else to do. Proposal - set the mandatory retirement age at 57 - all officers are fully qualified to Lt Col all enlisted fully qualified to MSgt. The cream as always will climb to the top while the rest will fulfil their careers moving from tactical to staff and training positions over time. In some services, the pilot force is managed in this fashion - in Sweden for example, all pilots are supposed to be fighter pilots in their "youth" progressing to transports and helicopters as they get older. Those who want to leave and fly for the airlines do so but at a loss of retirement benefits. Several NATO allies have an all or nothing retirement program that requires their members toreach age 55 before retirement. At least one NATO member even restricts retirees from taking on new work by reducing their payments by the same amount they receive from their new position (discourages the military to contractor revolving door). There are some benefits to this plan. The biggest being the re-branding of a military career as a calling versus a job. Unless the member wants to be CSAF there is little need for the careerism we see today. Members would choose jobs according to AF and personal needs and desires versus how it affects their careers. There will be less pressure to get promoted "on time" allowing for more broadening of careers and longer assignments (5-6 years). You still have the spouse issue, but since the member is staying in one place longer, there is less disruption. Moreover, by the time the member is ready to retire they are more likely to be grandparents than parents of school age children - even less disruption. And finally - retiring at age 57 means the retirement package starts right then allowing for a better transition. In my opinion, the establishment of a career to age 57 is critical to any changes in the retirement system. If the government decides to simply move retirement to 57 and high five then the exodus will be huge. Mainly because military members simply aren't crazy or stupid enough to place themselves and their families in the position of starting over at age 38-44 with nothing but a promise and a plaque. It's just not fair. This is common sense... Just my thoughts Hobbit

No, the AF may drop you in an instant if they feel like it. If you were to leave tomorrow, do you think Big Blue would screech to a halt? Probably not. The wheel will keep on spinning. However, after 20 years if your then ex-wife hates you and your kids barely know you, what have you really gained? Service before self? You bet. Service before my kids? To a point.

Looks like Lindsay Lohan just moved from the on deck circle to the plate.

The problem with your theory is that the individual doesn't necessarily have total control over what they do, career-wise. A person may WANT to take on those more dangerous jobs in order to earn a better retirement... however, the military may say "sorry, you're not what we need" or "We need you elsewhere" or "You're being non-vol'd to XX position which doesn't earn near as much retirement pay as your current duties do". In the corporate world an individual has the opportunity to advance into other areas if they're not content with the deal they are getting. They can go back to school and get an advanced degree to move up in the company, move to a different company entirely, start their own company, choose a whole other career choice, etc. But with the military, while you affect your career and can help your chances, you are also dependent on what big blue decides for you.

Ugh...can we leave the conspiracy theories for people wearing tin-foil hats? The reason your internet skillz have failed you is because this particular proposal on military pensions is from the Domenici-Rivlin "Restoring America's Future" plan, as commissioned by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a bipartisan think tank. Read an op-ed authored by Domenici and Rivlin in the Washington Post here, and a story from military.com specifically about proposed changes to military retirement and tricare here. Overall, their plan marries up closely to what was proposed by the 2008 Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, proposals that were entirely ignored by Congress. This is not a conspiracy...this as well as the President's debt commission (Simpson-Bowles) are attempts at bipartisan brainstorming at how to help reduce our national debt. Will these proposals pass Congress, we'll see but considering both sides have identified things in each proposal that are red lines for them I'm not holding my breath. Ok mr employee, I'm game. Is suggesting that people with truly dangerous careers should receive more benefits (i.e. they have "earned" more by actually being away from their families, being shot at, injured, etc.) than those sitting desk jobs so crazy? Ok, sounds good to me. I never claimed to be working the "hardest" job or the most "dangerous" job, but does flying in combat zones and frequently deploying sound harder and more dangerous than working the MPF? Yes. Does spending 15+ months at some sh*tty FOB getting shot at and seeing your buddies get killed sound harder and more dangerous than my job? Yes again. So...I'm not really sure what you're insinuating. I'm gonna assume you're a pilot and you have deployed several times since 9/11, is that fair? I'd say you've probably earned benefits similar to me and most of the guys on here, so I'm confused as to why the stereotypical "shoe clerk" (my Amn Joeblow from before) should earn as many retirement benefits under a revised retirement system. In my view, they should not if the reason we're giving such a generous retirement plan to military personnel is because they have "earned" it. If that's the case let's make it more generous for the people actually busting their ass and less so for people wondering how long they can sit in the food court of the BX before they have to get back to their cubicle. See post by Chicken. I honestly wasn't full-up on what Congressional pensions are based on, but I would have guessed it'd be similar to other civilian federal workers. That seems to be true based on what Chicken says so there ya go. Look it up yourself and if it seems unfair write your congressman/senators and next election only vote for candidates who support reducing congressional pensions if it's that important to you. I love on these emotional issues it's fine to cut stuff as long as it doesn't affect you directly. For that reason, you won't see Congress voting themselves less money or retirement benefits because if you allowed members of the military to vote for their own pay and benefits, do you think we would lower them as some great gesture to a nation straddled with unmanageable debt? Hellz no. Luckily for us Congress is ~535 members large, so their retirement benefits really have no effect on the deficit. And honestly neither do military pensions either so really, don't sweat it because this issue is not only political poison for anyone who even mentions potential reform, but it's also a drop in the bucket if we're really trying to lower the deficit. Arg...for all the calls to "Read the bill!!" it seems like no one actually did. If you can find in the bill where healthcare was supposed to be free I'll buy ya a beer. Name me a government program that's truly "free" and I'll call you an idiot. We pay taxes to support social security and medicare and every other government program out there. And "Obamacare" isn't really a government-run program anyways, it's a requirement that you buy private-market health insurance and a set of guidelines on what those programs need to include at minimum. If this were a single-payer system, yes, you'd be getting healthcare from the government...kinda like you do now under tricare. Unfortunately IMHO, that kind of system isn't sustainable on a grand scale unless you raise taxes in the short term to pay for the initial costs and it would have totally re-made the employer-based system we have now which insurance companies would not have been happy about. Ahh...whatever, this is completely off topic... To the point pawnman was trying to make, IDK if you would be immediately eligible for tricare if we changed the system as Domenici-Rivlin propose. The military.com article I linked to above highlights the plan's proposals WRT raising fees for tricare to cover more costs (i.e. when tricare started member fees paid for 27% of the program, now it's down to 11% b/c we haven't raised fees once since 1995). Honestly, it probably wouldn't matter much deficit-wise to allow retirees to keep tricare upon getting out a @ 20 years b/c the majority of people aged ~38 are not costing a lot for healthcare. Healthcare costs for old people is what's gonna bite us in the ass.

BL: I don't like you. You serve no other purpose than to validate retroactive birth control.

Really? Your posts are laced with passive aggressive insults to anyone who disagrees with you, which leads to the "BL: ToughShit" response and you get all butt hurt when someone replies...really? Grow a pair of stones. You want to have a debate, fine with me, but your bias serves comes out as sanctimonious elitism. There are huge fiscal issues facing this country and of course no one wants to have their ox gored. A litmus test to determine levels of military retirement based on your type of service....really that is what you have? While the military retirement system is expensive, it is not the problem. From a military budget point of view, the issue is acquisition costs, (O and M for USAF), and Tricare. Spend all the brain-bytes you want fixing those programs but the real issues are the social entitlement programs. Medicare (it will break us), Medicaid, and Social Security (now in the red while leveraging a non-existent trust fund).