Military retirement under attack

[WheelsOff]

Honestly though, is anyone surprised? I know this topic comes up periodically...I wouldn't be surprised if retirement benefits don't kick in until 65 by the time I put in 20 (if I even still decide to do that).

[Smokin]

No way will this ever get approved, but the hypocrisy of Congress seems to know no limits. Let's look at the difference between Congress's plan versus the proposed military plan:

-At 50, both can 'retire', but the military guy has to wait 7 more years for a paycheck.

-The military paycheck is computed off the last five years; the Congressman's off the last three years.

-In the military, if you serve for six years and get out, you might get a 'thank you'. In Congress, you get 9% of your pay as retirement.

-The retirement check of a Congressman is nearly twice as much as a retired O-5 gets.

If they're going to play the whole 'times are rough, everyone needs to tighten their belts' line, they should lead by example.

[nsplayr]

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Edited November 21, 2010 by nsplayr

[disgruntledemployee]

Mr Player,

So you think our retirement pay should be based on medals? Should we count the number of mortar attacks, multiply that by some actuary number, and add it to the number of deployed days? Do you figure in flight hours, because its more dangerous than driving to work? Do you have a shit factor for all the crap people breathe in at bumphuck Iraq? Hell, the safire rate will probably go through the roof now. What's your magic formula mr smartypants?

Ugh, I can't do it anymore...I'll stop picking on you...I was being sarcastic and you bit. Nonetheless, your proposal to fix what the politicians phucked up won't help, is controversial, and only serves to divide.

Out

PS, what is flight pay, haz duty pay, etc? Nibble nibble?

Edit - apparently I still cant say ######. I love the 1st Amendment, but not as much as the 2nd!

Edited November 21, 2010 by disgruntledemployee

[scoobs]

U guys make working for the AF sound worse then unsliced bread. Leave it alone, why change it now.

[nsplayr]

Mr Player,

So you think our retirement pay should be based on medals? Should we count the number of mortar attacks, multiply that by some actuary number, and add it to the number of deployed days? Do you figure in flight hours, because its more dangerous than driving to work? Do you have a shit factor for all the crap people breathe in at bumphuck Iraq? Hell, the safire rate will probably go through the roof now. What's your magic formula mr smartypants?

Um, yes, it should be based on something quantifiable if we're saying that retirement in the military is based on having "earned" it when compared to other federal workers. If we're not saying that, then I'm not sure our desk jockeys should be getting more than the desk jockeys at State, Justice, FBI, etc. Using AFSCs is an easy, broad-brush stroke way to do it and that's why there are retention bonuses for certain jobs and not others; we do this all the time with special pays and retention bonuses, yet when I try to apply it to retirement pay it's suddenly controversial and divisive because not everyone will get to "win" to the same degree after punching the clock for 20 years...

I'm not saying "I have all the answers, elect me emperor-for-life," I'm saying that this is a good conversation to have so that if/when changes comes we have a plan to pull off the shelf that is to our benefit.

Ugh, I can't do it anymore...I'll stop picking on you...I was being sarcastic and you bit. Nonetheless, your proposal to fix what the politicians phucked up won't help, is controversial, and only serves to divide.

I don't think you're picking on me...I really don't even think we completely disagree based on your views on turning desk jobs into GS positions. If no one in the military proposes these kinds of changes, then the starting point of the conversation will be based on what someone else cooks up, is that a better solution? If no one is willing to even think up bold, controversial new ideas about how to make our system better then what's the point?

PS, what is flight pay, haz duty pay, etc? Nibble nibble?

Pay that gives greater benefits to those who have "earned" them by undertaking hazardous duties that are essential to military operations. Why not incentivise retirement benefits in the same way that we do regular pay? If you fly and are deployed in combat, you earn more than the guy who doesn't when on active duty, but once you retire his "earned" benefits are the same as yours?? That does not compute.

Edited November 21, 2010 by nsplayr

[Guest]

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?

Yes. Crazy and arrogant.

[Butters]

Do you figure in flight hours, because its more dangerous than driving to work?

Actually, driving to work is much more dangerous than flying. You would be hard pressed to find a group of fliers that die at a greater rate in the aircraft than in cars.

Well, I take that back. Now that I look at a most of the fatal PMV accidents in the AF involve non-fliers. So maybe flying is more dangerous.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Butters

[Learjetter]

Actually, driving to work is much more dangerous than flying. You would be hard pressed to find a group of fliers that die at a greater rate in the aircraft than in cars.

8th Air Force bomber crews between 1942-1945. But your point is taken.

[pawnman]

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

It's not free. It's mandatory that you buy your own insurance, or you are subjected to fairly steep tax penalties for not having insurance. Which would make waiting for Tricare benefits that much more costly.

Yes, nsplayr, I was wondering if they delay the pension portion of the retirement, if they would delay the other parts of your retirement.

[nsplayr]

Yes. Crazy and arrogant.

So under one theoretical option, you rely more on individual contributions and give the greatest long-term benefits to those who have given the most to the service. If you take the personal responsibility to save your own money and sacrifice the most, you will benefit the most; if you sit on your ass you benefit less. The other option is one where everyone wins equally, and the government begins giving out "retirement" benefits immediately to people as young as 38. Which one of those sounds like a liberal, big-government, status quo option?

Guess all those people who wanted to reform the system, stop wasteful spending, and introduce market-based solutions to big government programs were really full of crap. The system as it stands now is great for us and I look forward to hopefully benefiting from it some day, but is it really the best, fairest, most efficient system that puts money in the hands of those who deserve it most?

Yes, nsplayr, I was wondering if they delay the pension portion of the retirement, if they would delay the other parts of your retirement.

That's a legit question. It doesn't seem like they called for any changes in the timing of tricare benefits.

[Boxhead]

Which one of those sounds like a liberal, big-government, status quo option?

Every word you type on every thread sounds like liberal big-government BS. But I admit maybe that is just to me.

Also remember, retirement @ 38 is not really retirement, it is more of a retainer...the Military can call you back whenever they want until (not 100& sure on the age)...till about 65...then it's retirement pay. Until then, they can call you back and if you say no...the retirement is gone.

Also, folks get paid extra for doing dangerous stuff...they get their basic salary for doing all the basic stuff that everyone does. Retirement is based off the basic stuff...you should not get retirement based off dangerous stuff you do 20 years ago...you get paid more for that while you do it....

[ClearedHot]

Yes. Crazy and arrogant.

No doubt!

Stop feeding the troll folks.

[nsplayr]

Every word you type on every thread sounds like liberal big-government BS. But I admit maybe that is just to me.

Oh yea, the part where I favor people contributing more, the government spending less, and those who deserve more getting more than relative freeloaders, yea, that's liberal BS. If you don't like me, fine, but this isn't a liberal proposal...it's been offered by several bipartisan and non-partisan commissions for years. Whatever, this is clearly a no-win when everyone else seems to be close-minded and retreating to their corner and throwing bombs at anyone who's trying to take their money. I get it.

Also remember, retirement @ 38 is not really retirement, it is more of a retainer...the Military can call you back whenever they want until (not 100& sure on the age)...till about 65...then it's retirement pay. Until then, they can call you back and if you say no...the retirement is gone.

Yeaa..right, it's a hell of a "retainer" then. How many people have gotten non-vol'd back to active duty this way again??

Also, folks get paid extra for doing dangerous stuff...they get their basic salary for doing all the basic stuff that everyone does. Retirement is based off the basic stuff...you should not get retirement based off dangerous stuff you do 20 years ago...you get paid more for that while you do it....

So it's a legit strategy to pay people more for doing dangerous/valuable jobs while they're on active duty but once we hit retirement, excuse me, "retainer"-age, then we're all equally valuable. If retirement isn't based on what you do while you're on active duty, why do we get so much more than civilian federal workers? I thought we "earned" our benefits, but as long as what we do on active duty doesn't matter then it's pretty hard to justify such a good deal. I'm arguing the exact opposite; a lot of military members really do sacrifice in their active duty jobs and they should get great benefits. That desk jockey at the MPF/medical/etc. that's never deployed, however, is probably not among them.

Stop feeding the troll folks.

Yes, the troll that is making the same argument as DOD studies. Is this really a partisan issue and you just hate me because I'm a liberal? I really don't think this is a red/blue dividing line.

BL: You don't like this conversation, tough sh*t. This issue will come up periodically and if we in the military aren't thinking about ways to improve our system, one day it will all go away once the calls for radical cuts go far enough. If the tea partiers get their way DOD will not be immune to the bloodletting...

Edited November 21, 2010 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

BL: You don't like this conversation, tough sh*t.

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

[nsplayr]

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

CH,

I'm not sure what your problem is here. We can disagree, and clearly we do, but we're all just regular guys BSing on an internet message board. You know of me and I vaguely know of you, so if putting a guy like me down on the internet makes you feel better then I'm sorry.

I'm out, this thread has devolved beyond uselessness.

~nsplayr

[itsokimapilot]

How about we add the "warrior" spirit to retirement. Eveyone knows the true warriors are the ones bustin out excellents on the PFT. The military could apply your PFT percentage to your retirement benefits. Score 85 on the PFT then you recieve 85% of your retirement benefits. Then we could start PFTing retirees. If you fail the PFT then you lose your benefits. That would save the government some money. (SARCASM)

[ClearedHot]

CH,

I'm not sure what your problem is here. We can disagree, and clearly we do, but we're all just regular guys BSing on an internet message board. You know of me and I vaguely know of you, so if putting a guy like me down on the internet makes you feel better then I'm sorry.

I'm out, this thread has devolved beyond uselessness.

~nsplayr

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).

[KWings06j]

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

And there goes one of the very short list of things keeping me from going guard... If this starts to sound like it's actually going to pass I may have to start looking for a job in NY.

[nsplayr]

So wait, now you want to engage on the issues? Or do you still want to "retroactively abort" me? I'm confused...

If you don't like my tone, then point taken, but throwing bombs is not the way to correct that. I might sound like a snarky asshole sometimes but based on the usual tone here on BO.net I didn't think that was outside the ops limits for discussion.

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).

I agree with everything you wrote here. This issue won't be touched because it's won't really solve the deficit meaningfully, and can't be backed politically.

The only reason we're debating this is because the OP linked the army times story about this particular aspect of the Domenici-Rivlin plan. This isn't some pet issue of mine, I can't wait to get my 50% pay if/when I make it to 20. Hell, it's not something that's even gonna change, but, the story was posted and since outside groups are looking at this for ways to save money, I think it's smart to have a discussion among ourselves about what possible alternate systems might be acceptable WRT costs, retention, etc. If those in the military don't have an acceptable counter-proposal to whatever is being brewed up in think tanks and debt commissions, then we'll definitely be forced to bend over and take whatever is coming down the pike. Based on attitudes expressed here, apparently any changes, or even talk of changes, will cause the world to end and/or everyone to seek out guard positions; at least we know where we stand I guess.

My idea was based on this premise: We're supposedly saying military retirement (or "retention") benefits are based on having been earned. Logically then, if we all get the same benefits in retirement assuming same rank and TOS, then we have all earned them equally. Really? Some 11B ground-pounder shooting it out in Iraq/Afghanistan has "earned" the same amount of retirement benefits as a desk jockey who's primary job is virtually identical to some GS civilian? We don't get paid equally while on active duty (flight pay, HFP, family sep, etc.), so why the feel-good, everyone's the same attitude once we hit 20 years?

Edited November 22, 2010 by nsplayr

[Vertigo]

So under one theoretical option, you rely more on individual contributions and give the greatest long-term benefits to those who have given the most to the service.

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.

[ClearedHot]

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".

Agreed

[ClearedHot]

The limelight is needlessly focused on the DOD budget (politically savvy to do so), when the real problem lies elsewhere. Look at the chart below...you could zero....I repeat ZERO the Defense budget and we will still go under because of entitlement programs. Thank you Lyndon Johnson...

Edited November 23, 2010 by ClearedHot

[Smokin]

Thank you Lyndon Johnson...

Don't forget FDR. Many Americans consider him to be one of our great presidents. Personally, I consider him to be one of the worst things that ever happened to America. He is where the many of these programs that are ruining our country started.

[brickhistory]

Military retirement pay is an incentive to get enough folks to take the full ride until at least 20 years of service. You trade your youth and prime career earning years for that guarenteed check at the end of the ride. Cut that and your replacement and training costs increases even more than the money spent on retirees.

The all volunteer force depends upon just that, volunteers. Want to get enough folks to sign up? Make it worth their while. Don't and they won't. Anyone willing politically to reinstitute the draft? If so, what number of dollars will be needed to make that work? It'd be a damn lot.

Go look at the numbers when military retirement has been monkeyed with. There is a corresponding dip in retention as folks bail to pursue other options that help them guarentee their personal retirement.

This play has been done already in Europe. Repeat acts are going as we bicker here. The entitlements of Greece broke that country. Ireland ditto. Portugal and Spain are about a month (exagerating for effect) away from the same result. We are 5 years away from it if entitlements are left unchecked. $13 trillion and counting in a national deficit is simply not an option. What happens when The Man, in this case China, et al, want to claim their note? We'd default. That'd do well for the country and the world.

Other nice ideas recently - last year's "stimulus" of $800 billion. Sure would've been nice to not have that added to the debt. Continuing to add to unemployment payment lengths? At what point is enough enough? Yeah, easy for me, I have a job right now, but for the country as a whole, how long can we pay for that?