nsplayr

So how about this potential solution? The government should either directly employ (unlikely) or start public-private cooperatives (more likely) that put people who are receiving unemployment benefits to work on basic infrastructure projects. Last time I checked roads still needed paving and ditches still needed digging, so if the government is paying people anyways why not actually require them to do the nation's work? Since the government itself doesn't have the process setup to directly employ millions more people, why not allow federal money to be used to start public-private cooperatives with companies that work in contracting, paving, construction, etc. who could employ people in low-skilled but necessary jobs? Take it a step further; why can't the government partner with charities, home-healthcare companies, etc. to do the same? At least make people receiving long-term unemployment benefits do something to earn those benefits. I'm sure there are soup kitchens that could use an extra hand.

If anyone thinks military pay will actually be cut they are an idiot. If anything it will be frozen (i.e. no cost of living raises every year). Congress has "led the way" by freezing their own pay so that's what I was trying to prove. I'm not sure what you're saying here, can you be more specific? Don't get it twisted, I don't think cutting (or freezing, the far more likely option) military pay is going to make one bit of difference in cutting the federal budget deficit. Yes, it will save dollars and some is better than none is an argument, but it's saving pennies when million dollar bills are being flushed down the toilet by increasing medical care costs and other systemic problems is pointless. Freezing military pay (or federal civilian pay) is merely a symbolic gesture to "share in the pain" with everyone else and doesn't address the big problem. Most people who are in the military or work for the federal government are regular, middle-class Americans and freezing their pay doesn't make sense to me if it doesn't accomplish anything. Some on here have argued that "Congress should lead the way," and I'm arguing that for the most likely COA (pay freezes), they already are so what's the larger point?

Like this?

They could build in more flexibility and options, but the services will oppose it because the 20 year or nothing approach is a unspoken retention tool and the military lobbying groups will oppose it because apparently any change is a "radical cut to benefits!!" To the determent of the active force who will not stay until 20 years (the vast majority) or those who would go guard/reserve early if they could.

This does not seem to be the case anymore based on the examples people have provided in the VSP thread, starting here. Any thoughts on those data points that directly contradict this claim?

The way I read it was that for whatever percentage of the year you were deployed, you got to deduct that percentage of your home's value off of your taxes in addition to the $50,000 in homestead exemption. For example, I was deployed 121 days last year, which is 33% of the year. So you take 33% of your home's tax-assessed value, and deduct that from the amount you pay taxes on. So if your house is worth $200K, you already only pay taxes on it like it was worth $150K with the standard homestead deduction, and if you were deployed for 33% of the year, you would only pay taxes on it like it was worth $84,000 (after an additional deduction of $66K i.e. 33% of the original value). Seems like a pretty significant additional deduction for folks who are gone a lot and I know there were plenty of people at HRT gone more than me. Anyone else get a different interpretation?

You're right. It's like smoking...there would be an uproar if you outright banned it (which commanders could do), but they want to make it so inconvenient that people give it up and therefore eliminate the risk altogether.

WTF man...seriously? If you don't see me based on the vest I'm wearing, the RB on my backpack, and the tail/brake lights on my bike, you probably weren't gonna see me anyways. There's always a risk when you ride of drivers just being dumb and not looking for you, but extra reflectivity usually isn't the silver bullet for mitigating that risk.

I think what he meant was that during the pipeline transition people wouldn't drop because the schoolhouse would be either closed or severely limited. I'm pretty sure MC-130s of all stripes going forward will retain the nav/CSO in some capacity.

I'll tell you from regular joe in the squadron rumor A is true and rumor B is not. We need quite a few more dudes, bottom line, and brand new dudes are completely acceptable and have been for years. I'm not in the schoolhouse squadron so I don't know the details behind any pipeline-induced delays yet. We've had a steady flow of cross-flow guys and the last trickle of folks from RND so I don't suspect that is the issue. Anyways, thanks for the info all and for flyingbull, keep working hard and hopefully some of you guys can start moving down the street soon. When guys start dropping U-28s on the CSO side tell them to PM me if they're on here and have any questions.

Interesting. I wanna look into where in the process our need for tons of new dudes is getting held up...too bad for those who wanted to come here because the need is there. Between the break in nav production with the RND-PNS move and now 2 drops in a row with no guys things are gonna get real lean around here...

Were any of those RC-135s navs or were they all EWOs? Does anyone know if the guys in that class has U-28s on their dreamsheets? Seen 2 drops and 0 folks getting that and I know for a fact that it's not pipeline related. Congrats on the drop, pretty legit.

How to pay: more funding. Simple as that. Some government programs need to be funded at a higher level and this is one of them that pays dividends in attracting and retaining a high-quality military force during all economic conditions. It's not gonna happen due to the enormous budget axe that's gonna smash through the entire government, but if I were King it would be a scalpel rather than a two-handed axe making the cuts. WRT maintaining the retention incentives...maybe TSP matches aren't the perfect system but something, anything that sets even intermediate retention incentive points is better than what we currently have. How many smart, motivated, young LTs and Airmen (see CH's stats above about our excellent enlisted troops) joint up and know from day 1 they are punching in 4-5 years because they sure as hell don't want to stay 20. I know dozens and dozens of people like this despite being surrounded by pilots who generally have a different calculus. One of the people I commissioned with just punched after 4 years and it's a shame because she was #1 in out class, smart as hell and very motivated to join the AF for a career. 1 crappy assignment served and another one denied and she's taking her talents elsewhere. I know more enlisted fliers than I can count who received years of valuable language and technical training and turn around and punch after 1 or maybe 2 enlistments because they can make so much more on the outside despite them having good job satisfaction in the AF. They weren't gonna stay for 20, but 6 or even 10 years is much more attainable with a little extra push. Imagine if there were incentives retirement-wise to stay in at the 6, 10, and 15 year marks? It would have to be less than just a proportional cut of the 50% benefit earned at the 20 year mark, but it could motivate people to stay in just a little longer, to the benefit of the nation. Right now there's absolutely no monetary reason to stay in the AF if you can punch after 4 years...the road to 20 isn't even tangible at that point and if you can make more money or have a more fulfilling job in the civilian sector that's hard to turn down. Not all of us get to fly planes and kill people and high-five in the squadron bar for a living and patriotic motivations only apply to those few true believers who'd rather die then give up the uniform (and god bless them). I suspect there are even less of those folks in the less glamorous career fields out there. I might sound cynical and like an accountant, but if you can incentivise, from a monetary perspective, continued service for XX number of more years, that's a win for potentially keeping a large category of good people. TSP matching would be nice because it encourages people to start to or more likely contribute more to their own retirement rather than waiting out 20 years of ass pain to have Uncle Sam throw them a chunk of change, but it may or may not be part of a better system. Even giving people 10% of their top-3 salary multiplied by years of service at 5 or 6 years could potentially get that bright Senior Airman or that jaded Captain to re-up. Hell, you could stipulate that there was a waiting period to start collecting benefits if you punch before 20 (i.e. if you punch at 6 years, you have to wait until age 55 to collect, if you punch at 10 years you have to wait until age 50, etc.) There are a lot of ways to skin this cat but it's an issue that I wish our policymakers would look at more seriously.

Karl and Rainman both made excellent points; different strokes for different folks and honestly we need people in both categories. Unfortunately our retirement system only has something for group B, group A can suck an egg. Yea yea we get the pride of serving, our ratings if we decide to fly on the outside (well I'm a nav so not so much there...) and etc., but everyone who serves gets those things and I'd say most genuinely get value from them. It's not all about the money like Rainman said, but for some people (group A) it is a little about the money and when our time is up and our commitment is served it can make sense to move on to a different lifestyle and/or career. A system that incentivised all service members to contribute to their retirements (TSP matches for group A folks, a guaranteed 50% pension for group B people) seems fair to me.

And if there were a different system, even the plain old FERS every desk-jockey civilian federally employee has, you'd be getting at least several hundred dollars a month once you're actually old and will need the money. Under the current system, if you do punch before 20, it's thank you for your service and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. At least the GI Bills provide lasting benefits to veterans who get out before 20 if they choose to actually use them. The best part of the current system is that you start collecting full benefits potentially at age 38 (or more like 42 for officers), and that's the most costly part too. 50% of your pay when you're 95% likely to be working another full-time job is a ridiculously good deal, one not afforded to almost any other high-risk career field. The current system pays nothing to people who do punch before 20 years and pays a lot to working age "retirees," not ideal at all IMHO. Reform doesn't have to equal a worse deal but I guess if you're a fan of the current deal it's worth the fight to keep it. The best system to me would reward some service, generously reward long-term service (20+ years), and would be given when a person is actually retired or disabled rather than 42 years young and on to lucrative career #2. I'm not hopeful of change anytime soon though so I doubt it's worth a panty-twisting.

I'm not very narrow in any way or angry right now, I'm curious. What military aircraft refer to their copilots as First Officers? Mine doesn't, so that's minus one from the 69 possibilities. If you're talking airlines cool, just be clear b/c around here we're assuming military for obvious reasons.

On the Starship Enterprise?

To pile onto all the numbers I found before, the official formula for military retirement is 2.5% x years of service (at least 20) x average top 3 salary. You can do the math, but our retirement system is much more generous than that of Congress, they (and all other federal civilian employees) are just vested much sooner. They also don't get shot at regularly and etc. etc. but that's kinda why they pay us more. Congress' base salary is also much higher than all but the most senior military positions, so that helps to jack up their numbers as well (i.e. average top 3 salary for a Lt. Col. isn't gonna be $174,000). So for anyone arguing that Congress gets "full retirement after a year" you're wrong. After 5 years, it's a qualified yes, but it's not "full retirement" from the perspective of a military person. 2.5% < 1.7% and that makes a big difference over the long haul...especially when military benefits kick in right away and FERS pensions apply to those actually of retirement age. Honestly I wish there was an option when you joined to either be on the current military system (more generous but must hit 20 years to be vested) or to be a part of the regular FERS system. In FERS, regular federal employees get TSP matching and are vested immediately, which would be an attractive option to all of those who are looking to punch before 20 years. There are obvious reasons the military doesn't want to change the system because they want people to stay the full 20 and once you reach a certain threshold of service they likely have you by the balls, but if Congress really wanted to increase quality of life for most military service members (i.e. those who don't stay in a full 20), letting us choose FERS would be a good deal. If I punched at the end of my nav school commitment (i.e. As an O-3 after 7 years of service) I'd get about $358 per month in 2011 dollars in pension rather than $0 that I'll get under the current system. Plus all that flight pay I've been putting in TSP would have been matched by the government dollar for dollar up to 5% of my base pay, slightly less than doubling my current contributions. Ain't much but it ain't nothing either.

Yea, that'd be nice but manning-wise it's just not possible I don't think. It either adhere to that policy or man the shops, either/or unfortunately. With damn near everyone pushing 3-4 additional duties we can't really afford to have new guys not helping in the Global War on Queep (GWOQ).

This is the kind of stuff Geithner was talking about when he said that Treasury could take "extraordinary measures" to keep the government under the debt ceiling until August rather than letting us bust through it sooner. If we could quick dicking around and get a deal on this it would help everyone out. I'm glad Speaker Boehner recently came out and said he wants a deal within a month.

Damn, well done sir This should be a recurring thread; BAMF of the week/month/whatever. Too many good stories of baddassery go unnoticed among all the bullsh*t normally on the news.

I've heard from the old heads that this used to be the standard in AFSOC...if there were any new LTs in the squadron they didn't have additional duties because their one and only duty was to become decently proficient in the aircraft and the mission. Sounds like a sweet concept...

Yea dude, that quote was bad ass. BAMF > bank robber with fake gun.

Not knowing your date of rank for the 2Lt-1Lt changeover is absolutely idiotic. Seriously...it's generally very near the day you commissioned, except 2 years later, shouldn't be that goddamned hard to remember. vMPF is your friend if you're iceberg is too full for that particular penguin. Big "2" on the making the dudes buy drinks. I too laugh at the completely unnecessary pomp and circumstance of the 2Lt finance officer promotion party (and I've seen pics from my friends recently), but that's their tradition. In a flying squadron you buy you bros drinks and get sh*tfaced, embrace that tradition and be glad it's a hell of a lot more fun than putting on service dress and standing on a stage with your SQ/CC. LTs not saluting each other in appropriately low-threat situations, smart & very bro-like. LTs not having enough SA on when they themselves pin on new rank and then quibbling that they were "too busy," give me a f*cking break.

I guess flying squadrons and LTs aren't the unified group of slackes Col. Jar Jar thought...too bad he took the time to write that article.