Military retirement under attack

[GoAround]

This would be a kick in the nut sac:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/11/military-budget-recommendations-retirement-cuts-111710w/

Second task force seeks to cut retired pay

By Rick Maze - Staff writer

Posted : Wednesday Nov 17, 2010 17:01:47 EST

The military retirement system is under attack from another group trying to cut federal spending, and this time they say they would make the changes apply even to current service members who have less than 15 years of service.

In a report released Nov. 17, the Debt Reduction Task Force of the Bipartisan Policy Group recommends cutting military retirement costs in half by making three changes:

• Instead of drawing a retirement check immediately after completing active duty, checks would not start until age 57.

• Instead of calculating retirement benefits on the highest three years of basic pay, the highest five years of consecutive service could be used as the multiplier to set amounts.

• A new formula would be adopted for calculating cost-of-living adjustments in military and federal civilian retired pay and Social Security — a formula expected to result in smaller increases by disregarding price increases in some goods and services if people could use a less expensive alternative product or service.

The Debt Reduction Task Force was headed by former Senate Budget Committee chairman Pete Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico, and Alice Rivlin, who was the White House budget director during the Clinton administration.

The report also talks of either freezing defense spending or rolling back the size of the defense budget to pre-2001 levels.

Retirement changes are similar, but slightly less drastic, than recommendations made by co-chairmen of another bipartisan group, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. That panel also recommended a high-five calculation for military retirement with a revised COLA calculation, but would have made retirees wait until age 60 to draw their first checks.

The Domenici-Rivlin task force calculated $131 billion in savings by 2040 from the revised retirement plan, but it noted that by postponing the effect on anyone with 15 or more years in the military, the plan wouldn’t start achieving real savings until 2017.

The recommendations from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform co-chairmen, former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., and former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles, do not include a specific savings estimate from changing military retired pay, instead lumping cost estimates in with changes in federal civilian retired pay. Additionally, the Simpson-Bowles recommendations do not specifically say whether anyone now in the military would be grandfathered or whether the reduced and delayed retired pay could apply to everyone still in the service.

Any change in retirement calculations would require congressional approval, since the formula and timing for payments are set in law. The two reports are expected to get attention from Congress next year when current lawmakers are faced with drawing up a 2012 federal budget plan after the 2010 elections featured a lot of talk about cutting federal spending.

[brickhistory]

...sigh....again?

"Hey, here's a great way to cut spending; let's defer/reduce retirement pay. It'll save gazillions!"

"Hey, how come we are 50% short on retention and our replacement and training costs are skyrocketing?!"

[Stitch]

WTF?

OK, for the benefit of the guy who wore a hockey helmet but wasn't on the team, this change would only affect those folks currently on active duty am I correct? Us already retired guys should be "safe".... right?

Why do they always seem to go after the military? Easy target to garner public support "cutting defense" and so forth (of course the $$ is then funneled into entitlement programs).

Why is it that we never hear about them cutting/messing with retirement for other federal gov't retirees? Is it because they are civilians or the unions would have s sh*t fit? What??? Granted the DoD probably retires more folks in one month than the Depts. State, Interior and Transportation put together.

EDIT: Lack of spelling skills.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Stitch

[nsplayr]

Ok, let me say first off that I am a big fan of the military retirement system and look forward to potentially reaping the benefits of it some day. I also think among almost all the workers out there, many people in the military have well earned the above-average benefits we'll all enjoy (also folks like firefighters, cops, etc. that do hard, physical jobs).

However, compare the benefits of a mil retirement, 50% of top-3 pay at potentially age 38 (or whenever based on when you came in), damn, that is insanely generous compared with what the civilian sector is offering today. Back in the day most good jobs had a defined benefit pension, now days not so much. Today it's almost all defined contribution and if you're very lucky you might get an employer match to dollars you contribute to a 401(k). Even handout-Queen, non-military federal workers don't get nearly as good of a deal (and I just ran bar-napkin math on this recently out of curiosity).

What I'm wondering is this, is there a better way to A) retain talented individuals while at the same time B) both lessening the financial burden on the government of a very generous pension plan and C) encouraging more personal savings. For instance, if I'm 18 year-old Amn Joeblow working at the MPF, I can contribute exactly $0 to my own retirement, and if I manage not to screw up and am totally average at my job, I can retire at 20 years of service and get 50% of my E-6 pay for the rest of my life. With 2010 numbers, that's almost $21,000 per year for, let's say 38 years (Amn Joeblow lives to an average of 76 years old). For this let's also assume that there are never any raises in retirement pay for inflation or anything else (i.e. this is an unrealistically conservative exercise).

Now, that's not going to be a very good retirement check on it's own. But did Amn Joeblow, who works an office job not unlike most civilians, really "earn" almost $800,000 in lifetime retirement pay?? I'd argue no. He didn't contribute $1 dollar to his retirement savings, yet gets paid quite a large amount and can start drawing that money when he's easily young enough to work another more-than-full, 30 year civilian career and still completely retire at age 68 along with everyone else. At which point Grandpa Joeblow is pulling his military retirement, whatever pension/401(k) money he's got from his long and distinguished civilian career, as well as social security.

Anyways, just compare that to what's being offered on the civilian side of the house these days and honestly we have it made. Yea yea risking life and limb and all the queep and deployments and etc., but it's possible to avoid a lot of that and get the exact same benefits as the most steely-eyed door kicker out there. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have an honest conversation about whether or not our system is the best, most efficient way to do things.

To me, you could put more emphasis on personal contributions, tailor retirement benefits to those who have "earned" them most, i.e. days deployed, particularly dangerous or hazardous career fields, etc. The civilian retirement system has changed a great deal in the past 20-30 years and the military is easily the best game in town WRT getting a good pension these days.

I don't realistically think that Congress will touch this with a 12 foot pole, but even as just an academic discussion I think it's a good one to have.

Edit to add: Just to emphasize, cuts like this won't even be a drop in the bucket unless we fix medicare. Even if we totally scrap social security and make extremely painful cuts to every department of the federal government, we're still f-ed in the A by medicare. So I vote we fix that and expend our creative talents figuring out that nut before we start squabbling around at the margins (i.e. cutting earmarks, foreign aid, mil retirement, federal employee pay, etc.)

Addition: while we're wishing I'd change the system to allow people to pull something at the 10 years mark, a little more at 15 years, and get full benefits at 20 years. The system we have now is awesome if you stay 20 years, and terrible if you don't since all you get is whatever you put into TSP and there's no dollar matching whatsoever like you have if you're a civilian federal worker. Hell, it's almost like what you get in the straight up private civilian sector...

Edited November 19, 2010 by nsplayr

[Guest newflyer]

Yeah, that would really kill retention...I know it would make me think twice...365 remote...bite me!

Why don't they kill some of the freaking social welfare programs. Son of a bitch dead beats with their hands out, not working for an honest pay check a day in their pathetic lives. I was once on food stamps, embarrassing as hell and I only did it for the absolute shortest length of time. That is the way the programs were designed. They weren't intended to benefit you for the rest of your damned life. I do realize that there are plenty of cases where people need welfare for the long haul, but McDonald's, Burger King, and KFC are almost ALWAYS hiring.

[DC]

Peace of mind at ages 44-57 is worth putting up with this crap another 8 years. Take that away, and you can kiss those last 8 years of service from me goodbye, Air Force. I can serve my country in other ways that are better for my family.

I'm not concerned, though. This is the bi-annual "cut military retirement" scare that amounts to nothing. Move along, nothing to see here.

[StoleIt]

Not sure I would stay in a full 20 if I had to wait damn near 60 to collect retirement.

Would be better to get into the airlines or some other flying job so that way I'd have seniority by that time, instead of being a 40-something year old and starting over with no seniority in the airlines AND no income.

I am not sure how former military fliers start off in the airline job, but obviously it would be a huge pay cut. So lets say I have a family of 4...that would be a huge pay cut I imagine.

[TarHeelPilot]

Retention Fail.

99% chance I'd punch after 10 if this went through. Like DC said, it's not worth it to the family.

The civilian pension argument is apples and oranges. Civilians don't spend half the year in crapmanistan, voluntarily flying into combat zones, risking their lives and losing friends along the way in the name of freedom. I think we've earned it.

[pbar]

I worry more about the Fed borrowing/printing so much money that inflation skyrockets and our retirement checks become worthless...

[FlyingBull]

Raise the contribution cap to my ROTH IRA to $10k a year and give me matching payments. Then I'd say we'd have a deal. Short of that, fuck off. I already don't plan on social security or medicare being there. Thats why I max out my ROTH as it is and I'm just a stupid 23 year old butter bar.

Besides, $131 billion over 30 years is $4.36 billion per year. Or in other words .03% of the deficit.

[PirateAF]

Retention fail - "two".

[TarHeelPilot]

Keep maxing the ROTH. I've done it every year I've been in.

Matching contributions for IRA won't happen, but matching to the TSP would be a possibility.

[nsplayr]

Raise the contribution cap to my ROTH IRA to $10k a year and give me matching payments. Then I'd say we'd have a deal. Short of that, fuck off. I already don't plan on social security or medicare being there. Thats why I max out my ROTH as it is and I'm just a stupid 23 year old butter bar.

Besides, $131 billion over 30 years is $4.36 billion per year. Or in other words .03% of the deficit.

This is exactly what I mean...there are other potential models that could work and still entice people to stay. Regular federal workers currently get TSP matching and their pension is 1% of your top-3 for every year you've worked (i.e. you'd only get 20% for 20 years). That's a potential problem in an up-or-out military compared to the feds where you can sit as a GS-13 indefinitely, but it's a place to start the conversation.

And you are also correct that this shouldn't be about cutting the deficit b/c the impacts are tiny since there's less than 2 million military personnel, and not nearly that many go the full 20 years, and there are waaaaaay more people trying to pull medicare in the near future. I know people got all excited about cutting spending/the deficit this last election cycle, but remember there are smart ways to go about this and dumb, broad-brush ways to do it as well.

Edited November 20, 2010 by nsplayr

[john]

Ok, let me say ... what you get in the straight up private civilian sector...

i see what your are saying and agree to a point. but i think you need to expand your concept of who is deserving of what in terms of full military retirement.

a finance troop sticking it out for 20+ only to go hassle people about there reflective belts down range? doesnt seem right, i agree.

but what about those for who i assume it was designed for? the army/marine/navy (hell, even a couple air force afscs) e6 who has done 5,6,7,8+ deployments/cruises for 12+ months a piece and has moved every 3 years in "defense" of the country? seems the least the country could do is say, here let us make your life a little easier for the next 30 years, thank you.

think about it, we are not quite in the private sector. aside from the whole being shot at and possibly killed thing, we are moved and deployed and our lives turned upside down at the whim of some politician or politically appointed official so that we have better career development. for who? you and your career? i think its safe to say that the dod and their elaborate plan doesnt give a shit about you personally. but rather to attempt to develop as many as possible so we get the needed number to lead the next generation and continue the machine of the us military.

do we make it a cut across the board? or do we instead change the retirement rules to actual afsc/mos/etc to encourage the proper retainment? hell, i would be more than fine with a above average match on retirement contributions. but honestly i just dont think you should sell yourself, or anyone else for that matter, short in saying that we make more/greater sacrifices than the private sector, and therefore a better compensation from those we defend is (i dont know how to put this without sounding entitled) acceptable? vs a private sector retirement.

i just hope that somewhere along the way along the way enough people realize that "service before self" only goes so far, and i can only be pissed on and told its raining so many times (along with many others in the military) before its just not worth it anymore.

john.

[Murph]

I love that this task force was headed by Pete domenici, the guy that saved cannon afb that ended up costing afsoc and soccom 1.5bn.

[brabus]

How do these asshats not realize that the retirement benefits are the #1 reason most people stay in for 20 yrs. This is especially applicable nowadays when everyone is gone 250+ days a year either deployed or TDY. Nobody is going to put up with that shit for 20 yrs if there's not a damn good deal at the end of the tunnel.

[OverTQ]

Flashback to 1992-2000.

[Hvydvr]

What is essentially a reserve retirement for a full active duty ration of BS? No thanks.

[B52gator]

In my current job, our retirement pension is something that we constantly have to defend because it is usually the first thing brought up for proposed cuts when times are tight. Even though I am a republican, I am thankful for the union when jobs and pensionz are on the line. Similar to this situation, smarter heads will prevail and all will be safe.

[Chicken]

What is essentially a reserve retirement for a full active duty ration of BS? No thanks.

Exactly... been on the fence wrt going reserve, however I liked the idea of getting a check when/if I retire at age 42. Would make guard/reserve an easy decision at that point.

On another note, I tried doing some quick google searches and found next to nothing wrt this. Why is that? I see non-stop reporting regarding proposed changes to social security, medicare, medicade, etc by Simpson and Bowles, but they mention nothing about military pensions. Why is that? Perhaps this proposal is trying to be covertly approved? Maybe it deserves more media attention.

[disgruntledemployee]

OK, mr player, if you feel a bunch of our military don't deserve a retirement because they don't work as hard as you, or their job isn't as dangerous as yours, or you feel their job is insignificant to military operations, fine. Lets fix it this way.

1. If their job is so simple and doesn't warrant a 20-year military retirement, then convert it to a GS-6/7/8/9. The shit gets done, there's continuity, you don't have to keep training a bunch of newbies, and you could probably cut a few positions.

2. If the job requires someone to deploy every once in a while, keep just enough military such that their ops tempo is the same as everyone elses. Thus they can have a retirement because they are now working as hard as you.

Now for you congresspeople. You want to cut military retirement, cut yours too. I say lead by example. Start with no retirement unless you serve 20 years.

OUT

[SocialD]

To me, you could put more emphasis on personal contributions, tailor retirement benefits to those who have "earned" them most, i.e. days deployed, particularly dangerous or hazardous career fields, etc. The civilian retirement system has changed a great deal in the past 20-30 years and the military is easily the best game in town WRT getting a good pension these days.

Hah....good luck with that! Don't you know that EVERYONE is a Warrior!

[Chicken]

OK, mr player, if you feel a bunch of our military don't deserve a retirement because they don't work as hard as you, or their job isn't as dangerous as yours, or you feel their job is insignificant to military operations, fine. Lets fix it this way.

1. If their job is so simple and doesn't warrant a 20-year military retirement, then convert it to a GS-6/7/8/9. The shit gets done, there's continuity, you don't have to keep training a bunch of newbies, and you could probably cut a few positions.

2. If the job requires someone to deploy every once in a while, keep just enough military such that their ops tempo is the same as everyone elses. Thus they can have a retirement because they are now working as hard as you.

Now for you congresspeople. You want to cut military retirement, cut yours too. I say lead by example. Start with no retirement unless you serve 20 years.

OUT

Well I'm going to run for congress...

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Senate Leadership

Majority Party Leader - $193,400

Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership

Speaker of the House - $223,500

Majority Leader - $193,400

Minority Leader - $193,400

[pawnman]

If the benefits don't start until age 57/60/whatever, the real kicker will be, do you retain your health insurance benefits between retirement and age 57?

Maybe that's the backdoor they're trying to save money on...healthcare. I suspect this is also the driving force behind the new PFT standards...get the unhealthy people failing PFTs, then you can force-shape your highest-cost individuals and retain the cheaper, healthy ones.

[StoleIt]

If the benefits don't start until age 57/60/whatever, the real kicker will be, do you retain your health insurance benefits between retirement and age 57?

Maybe that's the backdoor they're trying to save money on...healthcare. I suspect this is also the driving force behind the new PFT standards...get the unhealthy people failing PFTs, then you can force-shape your highest-cost individuals and retain the cheaper, healthy ones.

In theory shouldn't Tricare not matter? Because we will all have mandatory (and "free") Obama-Care?