Military retirement under attack

[Liquid]

I'm about as tech savvy as a sun dial, but I'm sure we can find someone who can post a link to the segment on here somehow. Maybe Chang or Liquid could even take a look to see what real Air Force leaders should look like Tony was smart enough to trade in Stars for Harvard Law. I'm guessing he will have a much bigger impact on the system with the path he has chosen sucks to see the AF lose yet another great leader though!

Piss off Rusty. That was an uninformed cheap shot. You don't know how I lead or what impact I have had.

I read Tony's blog and agree with most of what he says. He is intelligent, articulate and has recent AF leadership experiences that make his insights valuable. I disagree with his assertion (15 Dec blog post) that generals have let down their force by not speaking out against this bill. Senior leaders and all officers should refrain from participating in the political process and they should refrain from disparaging congress. Specifically, active duty officers must not "Allow or cause to be published in partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause." Article 88 of the UCMJ prohibits officers from using contemptuous words against congress, POTUS, SECDEF or SECAF.

When asked by congress, senior leaders should give their best military advice. According to Tony, and what I have also heard, congress did not ask CJCS or service chiefs for their advice before they proposed cutting retirement benefits. Retired Lt Cols like Tony are much more effective veteran advocates in the political process than generals can be. Hopefully Tony's efforts will result in this disturbing reduction in retirement benefits being removed from the current budget law. He makes very good arguments for why our civilian leadership should not break faith with the brave and selfless military members who serve this nation so well. My guess is that congress will reinstate the COLA increases early next year, long before the cuts impact retirees.

edit: Corrected leaving out "not" before "speaking out".

Edited December 27, 2013 by Liquid

[Fuzz]

What a bullshit response, why do we have to ask the dems, why didn't you and your colleagues make the change in the house? And also throw the bullshit flag on the tax increase but hey at least we know where you stand; hopefully that's only the case for another couple months till you get to join the rest of the unemployed.

Why did we not cut tax exemptions for illegals? Ask the dems. And the tea party who would have called that a tax increase.

[herkbum]

" Article 88 of the UCMJ prohibits officers from using contemptuous words against congress, POTUS, SECDEF or SECAF. "

Are you saying that we should not write letters to our elected officials? Because I do not believe anyone here has used "contemptuous words".

[herkbum]

Ok C-Man, I'll bite. I think your logic is flawed, and that your delivery is dishonest at best. I went back and corrected my previous post to make a better comparison. Also here is the text of the Wikipedia article that you suggested:

1) Active Duty military pensions are only available after 20+ years of military service. Using your Wikipedia source, Congressmen are eligible for pensions after as little as 5 years and are "vested" after that time. There is no option for an Active Duty military person to receive a pension prior to 20 years of service, unless it is a force shaping measure.

2) Are current members already "vested" in the Congressional system impacted by the civilian system changes? Your statement implies that they are not.

Why not apply those changes to members of Congress who have been "serving" the United States for the last 20+ years? Do you think that would be unfair? Disingenuous? Do you believe in leading by example? So is it ok for Congress to keep their current benefits for their service but not for members of the military?

3) Qualified service members losing a portion of their earned compensation AFTER signing on the dotted line is "an unfortunate fact" ? And its not your fault its the Democrat's fault or the Tea party? Is it ok for me to blame someone else for not accomplishing my job? "Sorry boss they bombed the target, but if I had a better widget this wouldn't have happened, but it was the best I could do." These are what we in the military call excuses.

Did you read Carr's article? We're not stupid. At least take ownership of your actions. Own your decisions. This goes for everyone in Washington.

We're living the Sequester. We get it. There is no money. We are doing fewer and fewer of the things that make this job cool. But don't piss on us, tell us it's raining, and then tell us its somebody else's fault when you (because you're allegedly a congressman) voted for it.

Cheers,

BeerMan

I would also like to add that I would love to have the compensation, pension, and work schedule of Congress.

[congressman]

Gotcha man. For the record I have been pushing for military members to be vested similar to how other federal employees are before 20 years. And no, current members on FERS are not affected nor are other federal employees including guard technicians. In the budget (the house republican budget that we have passed for the last three years) we have proposed and voted for a significant increase in contributions by all federal employees, current and future. And we have rejected our own COLAS for at least the last three years but I think it's been like 5. I don't expect congress to get a COLA for the next few at least. In fact years we voted to reverse our own COLAS proactively each of those years. One of the first votes I took was to cut our own budgets 10 percent, then we got hit also with sequester, so budgets are like 20 or 25 percent lower than my predecessor.

No federal employee has received a pay increase for at least three years, this year they will get a 1 percent increase, below inflation.

Since there are now caps on military spending, growth in pension and healthcare costs will crowd out what can be spent on readiness, etc. Sequester is dumb, was never meant to happen, but did because of a majorly divided government. This budget deal was small but will relieve sequester slightly, but most importantly prevents the further 20 billion dollar cut that was supposed to come along January first. That would have led to an even smaller force and more job losses.

I know it sucks... For all of us who have served and continue to (my hope is to make 20 as well). The worst possible outcome though is a complete collapse of our financial system. But since the changes don't take effect till 2015, my hope is we can replace the cuts to pension with cuts elsewhere. Here's to hoping.

Not gonna get drawn into an Internet argument since I do that for a living now, but just wanted to put a few points out there. Thanks for serving.

I would also like to add that I would love to have the compensation, pension, and work schedule of Congress.

That's funny, I miss my military schedule!

[Liquid]

" Article 88 of the UCMJ prohibits officers from using contemptuous words against congress, POTUS, SECDEF or SECAF. "

Are you saying that we should not write letters to our elected officials? Because I do not believe anyone here has used "contemptuous words".

No. I was referring to Tony Carr's criticism that generals have not spoken out against the bill. There is a difference between writing your congressman and publicly speaking out against a bill, and using disparaging language to attack supporters of the bill. And I never said or implied anyone used contemptuous words on this anonymous blog.

[herkbum]

Thanks to both Congressman and Liquid for answering the questions.

[congressman]

No problem. It was one of the hardest votes I've taken, and I've taken some difficult ones. I fully get how people feel, and can empathize. I recently returned from a trip to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Liberia. Each place I visit in my official capacity reminds me how great of a country we are and how great our military is. We need to preserve that power and that's what I have been trying to do, disagreements with my recent votes aside

[Bobby]

But since the changes don't take effect till 2015, my hope is we can replace the cuts to pension with cuts elsewhere. Here's to hoping.

Sorry, but as I've been reminded so many times in my military career...hope is not a plan.

[Wendell]

No problem. It was one of the hardest votes I've taken, and I've taken some difficult ones. I fully get how people feel, and can empathize. I recently returned from a trip to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Liberia. Each place I visit in my official capacity reminds me how great of a country we are and how great our military is. We need to preserve that power and that's what I have been trying to do, disagreements with my recent votes aside

No doubt it was a "hard" vote and the current retirement system needs to be reevaluated. Those currently serving should have been grandfathered in as promised and you sure as shit should not have changed it for those who are already retired. Nice way to thank those who served than by stealing from them to pay for the wars you (congress) sent us to fight.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Wendell

[Liquid]

Sorry, but as I've been reminded so many times in my military career...hope is not a plan.

You have the opportunity to engage with a congressman about an important issue and this is the best you come up with?

[Fuzz]

Sequester is dumb, was never meant to happen, but did because of a majorly divided government.

Yeah, it was never meant to happen but the GOP was also retarded in agreeing to military cuts when the democrats gave up nothing of value. Admit it you are over a barrel since the democrats don't care about sequestration because it doesn't really hurt their sacred cows. I'm really tired of seeing GOP members of Congress on TV crying about the sequester when they made such a shitty deal and the democrats called your bluff.

I don't expect congress to get a COLA for the next few at least.

My god, you make $174K a year and you want COLA? I know D.C. is pretty expensive area to live (grew up there) but that is 20-30K above the median income for the counties in that area. If my entire family can do it making way less than you and will be making less since you decided to take money out of my parents retirement, I'm sure you can too.

You betrayed your fellow service members when you take their earned income away ahead of the billions of dollars of waste and welfare programs (maybe you should pick up your esteemed colleague Sen. Coburn's book of government waste he just published). I get it cuts need to be made but the promise that is made to veterans should not be the first broken because you and your colleagues (GOP and Dems) can't get your act together.

[magnetfreezer]

No problem. It was one of the hardest votes I've taken, and I've taken some difficult ones. I fully get how people feel, and can empathize. I recently returned from a trip to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Liberia. Each place I visit in my official capacity reminds me how great of a country we are and how great our military is. We need to preserve that power and that's what I have been trying to do, disagreements with my recent votes aside

Why not start cutting with entitlements? SS/Medicare is such a large portion of the budget you could cut defense to zero and still be running a deficit. Start with keying the age for benefits to average life expectancy. When my grandfather started paying into SS in the 30s, having the "safety net" age set in the 60s made sense - from https://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html, the life expectancy was just under 60, leaving SS for those passing that age who could no longer work. Now with improvements in medicine/living conditions (not a bad thing), most live into their 70s and beyond, straining the system. Then, move toward privatizing it so it becomes less of a Ponzi scheme.

[backseatdriver]

I get it cuts need to be made but the promise that is made to veterans should not be the first broken because you and your colleagues (GOP and Dems) can't get your act together.

This.

[HU&W]

I know it sucks... For all of us who have served and continue to (my hope is to make 20 as well). The worst possible outcome though is a complete collapse of our financial system. But since the changes don't take effect till 2015, my hope is we can replace the cuts to pension with cuts elsewhere. Here's to hoping.

Thanks for the insight. I really appreciate you jumping on here to show us a little peek of the bigger picture.

For feedback, the budget deal did some damage to the relationship with troops who were planning to continue to retirement, but not as you might have expected. Sure, the loss of $100K or so over 20 years hurts a bit, but the real issue is with the betrayal of trust. Throughout the year, as recently as September, congressional leaders from both houses promised any military retirement reform would include a grandfather clause. This one didn't. If those holding the keys to our future are willing to make this small reversal, can we reasonably trust them with 20 years of our lives without fear of far greater losses?

[Spartacus]

Thanks for the insight. I really appreciate you jumping on here to show us a little peek of the bigger picture.

For feedback, the budget deal did some damage to the relationship with troops who were planning to continue to retirement, but not as you might have expected. Sure, the loss of $100K or so over 20 years hurts a bit, but the real issue is with the betrayal of trust. Throughout the year, as recently as September, congressional leaders from both houses promised any military retirement reform would include a grandfather clause. This one didn't. If those holding the keys to our future are willing to make this small reversal, can we reasonably trust them with 20 years of our lives without fear of far greater losses?

Shack!

Congressman, for us 11x types this is not good. We get our flying hours cut and even grounded in some cases due to the sequester, the airlines are hiring more, some of us are facing RIFs, AND now it looks like if we decide to stay to 20 that we should not trust in any way that we'll get the retirement that we have been told we will get. Have you seen this? https://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/26/air_force_warns_we_could_run_out_of_pilots#sthash.7jYojEtx.dpbs To you I ask this: What has Congress and the Air Force done recently to make us think that we should stay in when it seems like you are breaking faith with us?

[Rusty Pipes]

Piss off Rusty. That was an uninformed cheap shot. You don't know how I lead or what impact I have had.

Liquid… I wasn't calling out your leadership or impact since I don't know either. I was calling out your bosses that both you and Chang seem to look up to and defend on a regular basis. If those guys had the leadership skills that Tony has (and I know it from more than just reading his blog) you wouldn't have scores of pages on this forum dedicated to how much things suck!

Its not that hard… your average crew dawg just wants to be inspired! We are desperately looking for those in leadership positions to (gasp) actually fucking lead!!! Those who try are crushed or quit. And some end up on FoxNews at 6:15 EST tomorrow morning. Guess what… it isn't Chang!

Edited December 27, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[RTB]

It was one of the hardest votes I've taken, and I've taken some difficult ones.

So why did you vote for it? I assume you were fully aware of the retirement COLA cuts when you voted. Was there no time to 'fix' that provision before it went to the senate? Like others have mentioned, so much was said in the past year about how current retirees and currently serving personnel would be grandfathered in any new plan that I'm pretty surprised this provision was allowed to move forward without any debate or challenges. Very disappointing. And although small in scope, the fact that it happened at all is an ominous sign that congress' attitude towards taking from those that serve is now fully on the table.

[GoAround]

Rusty, I don't need to know anything about their leadership outside of BODN. Their posts alone reflect their true colors. They probably read their bios everyday--basking in the light of the boxes they've checked, the fake PME degrees they've earned, and think they've "impacted" something in their organizations that they've "led"...I wonder what the airmen who've served for them (or as Chang would say, "serviced") think of their leadership style?

[Liquid]

Rusty, I don't need to know anything about their leadership outside of BODN. Their posts alone reflect their true colors. They probably read their bios everyday--basking in the light of the boxes they've checked, the fake PME degrees they've earned, and think they've "impacted" something in their organizations that they've "led"...I wonder what the airmen who've served for them (or as Chang would say, "serviced") think of their leadership style?

Wonder away. You don't know what you are talking about.

[Fuzz]

Wonder away. You don't know what you are talking about.

Sorry but personally Liquid has brought a lot to this forum IMHO, yeah there were some early growing pains but he provides good insight and valuable info. Also he hasn't, outside a some very specific topics, come across as one that chugs blue koolaid.

Liquid I missed your earlier post of about senior leadership not taking public stance, and I thought it was spot on. I've read several early AF leaders biographies and many were very opinionated about not interjecting the military into politics, I believe General Tunner didn't vote till he left the service. Unfortunately it leaves us without a strong voice and reliant on people removed from the organization (Tony Carr, AFA, MOAA), I think it is necessary for out government to function. For better or worse, I would be more concerned if I saw the CSAF or CJSC on TV advocating for or against a bill without solicitation from Congress, that's what happens in countries where the military plays a role in governing (Egypt, South American or African countries).

Edited December 27, 2013 by Fuzz

[brabus]

And although small in scope, the fact that it happened at all is an ominous sign that congress' attitude towards taking from those that serve is now fully on the table.

Shack. I was already suspicious of the "grandfathered" claim in the recent past, but this move just proved any military benefit, program, etc. is or can be on the chopping block with little to no challenge in Congress. The safe assumption that any rational military member will make is the 20 yr retirement will either be non-existent or a complete shell of what it was when all of us currently serving signed away years of our life. So now, what in God's name is my incentive to stay in for 20? Where will the AF find it's strong leaders to be SQ/CCs, OG/CCs and WG/CCs? The AF needs good leaders to stay in, but we've already seen large numbers of that group continuously get out ASAP; now the above precedent is set...what does upper management and Congress expect to happen next?

Here's what I get if I stay in for 20:

Pros:

1. Get to serve my country

2. I get to do the job I love to do (mostly...for now)

3. I work with great Americans, and I thoroughly enjoy the commraderie

4. The pay's not that bad

5. A retirement (but see Cons below)

Cons:

1. A retirement that is less than what I was promised when I signed up to give at minimum 11.5 yrs of my life (and my family's) to the AF.

2. Several more moves (maybe to places my family doesn't want to live...but we'll sacrifice and go anyways)

3. YEARS more away from my family spent in the shittiest places this world has to offer

4. Being continuously treated like a child by shitty management instead of an officer and an adult

5. Every year facing more and more roadblocks to doing the job/completing the mission

To sum it up, I can achieve all the pros listed above outside AD; I can certainly get at least 4/5. All while seeing the same pros on the outside, I can avoid most, if not all, of the cons listed. At least for me personally, I REALLY care about the extra 5ish moves and years away from my family. So I can suck up a couple of those other cons if need be.

There are certainly smaller items that could be added to each list, but these are the big ones. Don't get me wrong, I love my job as it stands RIGHT NOW, and I have and will continue to enjoy serving my country. But, as things continue to go in the wrong direction, I see less and less reason for a person to stay for 20+ years. Sure this is my opinion, but it's an opinion shared by A LOT of fellow officers. It's also an opinion that's backed by facts and precedence; difficult to argue against.

How about A1 reads the above, maybe 6-9 times for clarity, so they start getting a clue as to what is really happening outside the basement they work in. You all can blame the three glasses of Lagavulin for the long post.

[noodles]

https://video.foxnews.com/v/2978559571001/veterans-angered-by-new-bill-to-cut-pensions/?playlist_id=928378949001 TC on Fox

[AnimalMother]

Once again, don't forget that we are playing their game here, they are free to change the rules at will. Political law is as capricious and transient as the politicians who make it. You're a fool if you trust them with your well being. If, in 10-15 years, military retirement has not undergone substantial changes, I'll eat my damn hat. Consider yourself very lucky if they grandfather you in. FENCE IN accordingly.

[Vicious3027]

I think that the underlying issue with this is that our gov't not only screwed over military retirees by cutting pensions, but also added to the resentment by giving a big 1-finger salute by not cutting entitlement spending.

It is just a damn shame that our elected officials would sellout for those who do not contribute a damn thing for this country.

My .02