Military retirement under attack

[HU&W]

Because my lone voice in the wilderness means less than nothing to a senator from a state as large as TX.

That is exactly what gives your voice power. Because so many people share your sentiment, a single letter could count for the voice of thousands of silent constituents.

Edited December 18, 2013 by HU&W

[HeloDude]

I already called my congressman's office and let them know I would not vote for them again this year, even if it means not voting since it doesn't look like they'll have a primary challenger.

Really, dude?? Out of all the people on a ballot for office, and you can't find one guy or gal you think would be decent in office? (and yes, 'decent' is/can be a relative term). I get that your politics are probably closer aligned with the GOP than the Dems and you're upset with your GOP Rep/candidate, but you still have other options--you're not limited to the traditional 2 party system.

[Prozac]

I think most moderately intelligent people have seen the writing on the wall for a while now. Anyone recently retired or about to retire has likely been doing their own investing and will probably be ok. The folks who are royally screwed are in their 70s and 80s and on a fixed income. They are no longer a large enough voting block for your average politician to be concerned about. Most of us have figured out by now that you have to take care of number one first. It's nothing new that folks in this country will put an American flag on their lapels or an "I support the troops" bumper sticker on their cars, but the minute they are asked to make ANY sort of real sacrifice, they'll turn their backs. That's not to say, necessarily, that these people aren't worth defending. It's just the nature of the beast and something that every service member should understand as he goes about his work. Continue to fight the good fight. Just don't expect much (or any) recognition.

[HeloDude]

I think most moderately intelligent people have seen the writing on the wall for a while now. Anyone recently retired or about to retire has likely been doing their own investing and will probably be ok. The folks who are royally screwed are in their 70s and 80s and on a fixed income. They are no longer a large enough voting block for your average politician to be concerned about. Most of us have figured out by now that you have to take care of number one first. It's nothing new that folks in this country will put an American flag on their lapels or an "I support the troops" bumper sticker on their cars, but the minute they are asked to make ANY sort of real sacrifice, they'll turn their backs. That's not to say, necessarily, that these people aren't worth defending. It's just the nature of the beast and something that every service member should understand as he goes about his work. Continue to fight the good fight. Just don't expect much (or any) recognition.

This...unfortunately.

[Rusty Pipes]

I think most moderately intelligent people have seen the writing on the wall for a while now. Anyone recently retired or about to retire has likely been doing their own investing and will probably be ok. The folks who are royally screwed are in their 70s and 80s and on a fixed income. They are no longer a large enough voting block for your average politician to be concerned about. Most of us have figured out by now that you have to take care of number one first. It's nothing new that folks in this country will put an American flag on their lapels or an "I support the troops" bumper sticker on their cars, but the minute they are asked to make ANY sort of real sacrifice, they'll turn their backs. That's not to say, necessarily, that these people aren't worth defending. It's just the nature of the beast and something that every service member should understand as he goes about his work. Continue to fight the good fight. Just don't expect much (or any) recognition.

I agree... but your pension isn't recognition, it is compensation for services rendered

[Fuzz]

Really, dude?? Out of all the people on a ballot for office, and you can't find one guy or gal you think would be decent in office? (and yes, 'decent' is/can be a relative term). I get that your politics are probably closer aligned with the GOP than the Dems and you're upset with your GOP Rep/candidate, but you still have other options--you're not limited to the traditional 2 party system.

I switched my residency to OK when I moved to Vance, unfortunately the GOP Rep has been firmly entrenched for years and any primary challenged usually gets demolished not to mention the Democratic candidate. I didn't say I wouldn't consider other candidates (unfortunately there isn't much libertarian influence), I'm just not voting for him period, even if he's the most agreeable one in my view.

[nsplayr]

The folks who are royally screwed are in their 70s and 80s and on a fixed income. They are no longer a large enough voting block for your average politician to be concerned about.

This bill does absolutely nothing to affect those people.

The changes to mil pensions are to decrease projected COLA increases for working age retires i.e. those 62 and younger. At age 62 you go back to getting standard COLA increases each year.

Honestly this isn't a "loss" of money in the strictest sense, it's a decrease in projected increases that, for most currently serving are at least several years into the future.

Frankly anyone truly banking on and budgeting based on the government's projections of future COLA increases was smoking crack or up a creek already. Yes it's a bad deal for current retirees and those retiring soon but personally I'm not planning my retirement or my life based on projected COLA increases...YMMV.

As I pointed out, Fed civilians got screwed WAY more in that anyone with less than 5 years in service effectively takes an immediate 1.4% pay cut on 1 Feb 14. I certainly do plan my monthly budget and taking a pay cut right meow for the exact same retirement benefit is more of a problem to deal with.

Standard disclaimer that I don't support either measure, just trying to argue the points accurately.

Edited December 18, 2013 by nsplayr

[TMFan]

Honestly this isn't a "loss" of money in the strictest sense, it's a decrease in projected increases that, for most currently serving are at least several years into the future.

The effect is exactly the same. It's logic like this that allowed it to pass the House and Senate. Imagine the outcry if the proposal had been to lower the payments to 40% or 45% from 50% for 20 years served. Essentially, that is what has happened, yet few seemed to have batted an eye.

Frankly anyone truly banking on and budgeting based on the government's projections of future COLA increases was smoking crack or up a creek already. Yes it's a bad deal for current retirees and those retiring soon but personally I'm not planning my retirement or my life based on projected COLA increases...YMMV.

The fact that we've been expecting it doesn't make it right. This was, no doubt, the first of many kicks in the nuts, but if we don't put up a fight, it will only embolden Congress and the administration to try it again sooner and take bigger cuts.

[HU&W]

Senate approved 64-36. Link

also

Senators from both parties called for going back later to replace the $6 billion in cuts to future cost-of-living increases in military pensions with reductions elsewhere. "These heroes lay their lives on the line for us and they deserve us to fix this provision," Isakson said before voting for the budget agreement.

[HeloDude]

Senate approved 64-36. Link

also

McCain voted for it...as expected. Nuff' said.

[Dupe]

Senators from both parties called for going back later to replace the $6 billion in cuts to future cost-of-living increases in military pensions with reductions elsewhere. "These heroes lay their lives on the line for us and they deserve us to fix this provision," Isakson said before voting for the budget agreement.

Perhaps a BRAC round could be the source of those replacements...

[FlyinGrunt]

Nsplayr, I know you're intelligent enough to understand that what you're arguing is only effective on the ignorant millions who do not understand the concepts of net present value, time value of money, and real buying power. Constant dollars over time, coupled with expectations of future inflation (as supported by the Fed's desired inflation targets and policies to support) together add up to decreased buying power and standards of living for our veterans.

Whether you're for or against the bill is immaterial . . . anyone with a basic knowledge of economics can see right through the "this isn't a cut" argument.

[Tulsa]

Nsplayer is our resident liberal retard, just ask him if he has seen his baseball please.

[BitteEinBit]

Nsplayer is our resident liberal retard, just ask him if he has seen his baseball please.

Yeah, but he doesn't call it a baseball....

[Chuck17]

Whether you're for or against the bill is immaterial . . . anyone with a basic knowledge of economics can see right through the "this isn't a cut" argument.

Whoa partner, this is the internet after all. Didn't you know? Research, knowledge, history, accuracy - be damned!

Opinion reins. If I type louder and more often than you, I win.

Chuck

[Ram]

Opinion reins. If I type louder and more often than you, I win (but not at life).

FIFY.

[nsplayr]

Nsplayr, I know you're intelligent enough to understand that what you're arguing is only effective on the ignorant millions who do not understand the concepts of net present value, time value of money, and real buying power. Constant dollars over time, coupled with expectations of future inflation (as supported by the Fed's desired inflation targets and policies to support) together add up to decreased buying power and standards of living for our veterans.

Whether you're for or against the bill is immaterial . . . anyone with a basic knowledge of economics can see right through the "this isn't a cut" argument.

The buying power of your retirement dollars absolutely is reduced over time with this deal, no doubt. All I'm arguing is that there is a difference between a cut that takes place immediately and a decrease in projected future increases. The end result may be be the same in the long run i.e. you have less money, but that doesn't mean a policy saying "Bam, now you have less money in next month's check" is the same as what has been passed.

Not that either is a good idea...I'm sure we can all think of better ways to raise revenue to offset the partial lifting of sequester cuts even if we may not agree in what that would look like.

Feel free to gnash your teeth at the token "liberal fucktard" and etc. but realize more Republicans supported this measure than Democrats and it was not the Democrats demanding an offset to sequester changes.

[matmacwc]

Of course, raise revenue.

[TMFan]

Feel free to gnash your teeth at the token "liberal ######tard" and etc. but realize more Republicans supported this measure than Democrats

Wrong again.

In the House vote, 169 Republicans voted aye vs 163 Democrats. In the Senate, it was 9 Republicans and 53 Democrats.

[Homestar]

At least they fund illegal immigrant medical care with this bill.

[Smokin]

Republicans just wanted this to go through quickly and without significant media attention so everyone can keep pointing out how ObamaCare is falling on its face. Had there been another government shutdown in Jan, no one would care that Obama's signature legislation and his legacy is turning out to be a complete debacle.

[Bender]

Dear [Bender]:

Thank you for contacting me regarding changes to the military retirement system included within the recent bipartisan budget agreement. I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

The "Bipartisan Budget Act" (House Joint Resolution 59), which passed the House of Representatives on December 12, 2013 and the Senate on December 18, 2013, sets new spending limits for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015. In order to accommodate these new spending levels, the bill includes a number of changes to federal employee and military retirement benefits, Medicare, and several government user fees.

With regard to military pensions, the bill would temporarily reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to the rate of inflation minus one percent. This change would only apply to working-age retirees under the age of 62, many of whom have pursued second careers after their military service. Retirees older than 62 would be unaffected.

It is important to note that the bill also includes a provision that would readjust these working-age retirees' pensions once they turn 62 as if the annual COLAs had not been reduced. Therefore, under this "catch-up" provision, while working-age retirees will see their annual pension annuity temporarily grow less than the rate of inflation, once they turn 62, their pension annuity will immediately and dramatically increase to the level it would have been under the traditional COLA indexed to inflation.

I appreciate your concerns regarding the COLA reductions that working-age retirees will face as well as the fact that the terms of their retirement benefits are being changed after their service. Please know that the budget agreement was not subject to amendment on the Senate floor. If the Senate had amended the bill, the budget agreement would have failed, given that the House of Representatives had already recessed for the year and therefore would have been unable to approve any revised version of the agreement.

This agreement, though imperfect, creates the budgetary certainty necessary for the federal government, and especially the Department of Defense, to properly plan for the next two years. It is my hope that this agreement will finally mark a return to regular order and end the series of budgetary crises that led to harmful fiscal uncertainty and a government shutdown.

As you may know, the COLA reduction provision does not take effect until December 2015, and please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate review or revise this provision in the future.

Once again, thank you for writing, and I hope that you will continue to keep me informed about issues of importance to you. Should you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website at www.feinstein.senate.gov . Best regards.

Also, may I take this opportunity to wish you a happy and healthy holiday season.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator

Mission accomplished!

Bendy

[Homestar]

At least she wrote you back. My (Republican) rep and senators didn't bother.

[herkbum]

At least she wrote you back. My (Republican) rep and senators didn't bother.

same here

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me about changes to cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for certain military retirees. Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.

Like you, I understand how important COLAs are for our military retirees and their families and the substantial concerns about reducing pension benefits. Please know that I voted against the Ryan-Murray budget proposal.

I want to close by recognizing the tremendous service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. They are patriots, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude for their work to protect and provide security for our country. I believe that our service members, retirees and veterans should receive every benefit that America has promised them, and that we should ensure that their legacy is honored and protected.

Thank you again for your letter. I hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with me throughout my service in the Senate.

Sincerely,

Bob Corker

United States Senator

EDIT: ETA Rep Senator Response letter (right now, the only incumbent I will vote for, for this and other reasons)

Edited December 19, 2013 by herkbum

[deaddebate]

Again, more info.

https://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5345

Department of Defense Press Briefing by Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey in the Pentagon Briefing Room

SEC. HAGEL: [...] we can no longer put off military compensation reform. [...] we'll have to make disproportionate cuts to military readiness and modernization. DOD cannot sustain these current programs as they are structured. We will work with Congress to bring the rate of growth of our compensation and benefits programs in line with budget limitations and fiscal realities. We know that many proposals to change military compensation will be controversial and unpopular. One example is the provision in the budget agreement that slows the rate of growth and the cost-of-living adjustments for working-age military retirees. Going forward, I strongly support Senator Levin's efforts to review the provision in the Senate Armed Services Committee and take a comprehensive -- an overview of all the compensation programs, take a comprehensive look at military compensation reform. We need to review all options for achieving necessary savings, and we will work closely with Senator Levin and other leaders in Congress on this issue. Tough decisions will have to be made on compensation. The leadership of DOD is prepared to engage the Congress in achieving compensation reform. But any changes to cost-of-living adjustments should not apply to medically disabled retirees. These retirees need to be exempted from the changes in the budget agreement just passed by Congress. [...]

GENERAL MARTIN DEMPSEY: [...] We still need, as the secretary mentioned, to strap on the challenges of institutional reform, pay compensation, and health care changes, and acquisition reform, and we will do so. Of course, the remainder of sequestration still lurks on the horizon beyond these two years. And so some of the force structure changes, force structure reductions, that we had planned based on sequestration will march on. And I hope that in the time we've just now bought for ourselves, this two-year period, we can continue to have a conversation, a discussion, a debate, and an understanding about what full sequestration would do to the military forces of the United States. So that's where we are on the budget. [...]

Q: [...] As good as the deal was, you got $20 billion restored, there's another $32 billion roughly that's going to have to be cut. […] What areas are you going to recommend to the appropriators that they cut in the $32 billion remaining amount of money?

SEC. HAGEL: [...] I'm not going to preview what we'll be presenting and what we're not and where we're going to be cutting. [...] we're still dealing with 2014.[...]