Military pay/benefit cuts proposed

[Danny Noonin]

Ok How are you going to pay for that "fairness"? (tsp matches)

The fact is that no retirement system (tsp matches, etc) other than a 20yr pension IS the very reason tons of folks stay in. Otherwise far more folks would punch at 12 yrs or so when they start to get tired.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Danny Noonin

[sky_king]

Like I said before, the DOD needs to figure out how much it spends on the 20 year retirements. They then take that money and apply it to TSP matching. If Lt/Amn Snuffy wants to be responsible and invest his cash, he gets a little reward. If he wants to buy the 2012 Lexus/BMW/Monster Truck with the cash, he doesn't get Uncle Sam's contribution.

I think this would be the better system overall as it would provide retirement benefits, it puts the money into the free market a little more, and it promotes fiscal responsiblity. The best part to the government is that if General Ilovemytoys, spends all his cash on hookers and blow, they are out absolutely nothing after his 20+ years. Additionally, how much money is an Amn really going to stash in his first 5ish years? They aren't going to lose anything by offering this to first term airmen.

On another note, I'd me more than willing to have them reduce my salary from $80k/yr to $70k/year if they could get rid of queep or hire more people dedicated to doing the queep jobs.

[ClearedHot]

Like I said before, the DOD needs to figure out how much it spends on the 20 year retirements. They then take that money and apply it to TSP matching.

Completely unsupportable...that would push a huge bill to present day and the actuaries would probably consider it a bad bet.

I saw a VERY interesting statistic a few years ago about the average life expectancy of retired enlisted folks who smoke...As I recall retired enlisted members who smoked had on average only collected 12 years of pension before they died. While military folks tend to be more healthy in their youth, they use tobacco at a rate twice that of the general population and tend to die at a much higher rate. Another factor is the military health care system and the fact that patients and doctors are reassigned frequently and continuity of care can suffer compared to what other groups experience.

Another study found that those who retire from active duty die much sooner than those who served as reservists...In particular the death rate for active duty enlisted retirees is 20 to 25 percent higher than for reserve enlisted retirees. I guess I should have gone guard.

[Guest]

Another factor is the military health care system and the fact that patients and doctors are reassigned frequently and continuity of care can suffer compared to what other groups experience.

I never thought about that until I got out. I have an additional executive health care benefit of having my primary physician at the Mayo. They are super thorough and unbelievably efficient. I am lucky to be in excellent health but as time passes I will have excellent continuity of care and they will preempt anything that can be preempted. It is amazing when I talk to others who have this same benefit and realize how many issues were caught because of continuity of the best helath care in the world. Things that were handled quickly that would've killed them had they not had that level of health care.

Another study found that those who retire from active duty die much sooner than those who served as reservists...In particular the death rate for active duty enlisted retirees is 20 to 25 percent higher than for reserve enlisted retirees. I guess I should have gone guard.

You don't sweat it...you have to have a heart to die from a heart attack.

Did they comapare both those death rates to civilians, which is basically what enlisted reservists are?

[ClearedHot]

Did they comapare both those death rates to civilians, which is basically what enlisted reservists are?

They did and our enlisted folks died at a rate over 10% higher than the general population, our officers were on par with the average.

I also saw some AMAZING statistics on our force reference the quality of people coming into the Air Force...not to bore you with a details, but USAF folks are scoring in the upper 90% of all ASVAB scores, The Navy was in the lower 80's, the Army and USMC were in the 60's. In short, we have the choice of the best folks coming into the services these days by a WIDE margins and the majority of enlisted folks coming in the USAF these days would easily qualify for college. Based on what I saw today I think there could be a large negative impact to cutting TA.

[Guest Crew Report]

A lot of Enlisted in the USAF joined to finish college. While the USMC scores in the 60's they won't accept any GED's, must have a high school diploma.

[nsplayr]

Ok How are you going to pay for that "fairness"? (tsp matches)

The fact is that no retirement system (tsp matches, etc) other than a 20yr pension IS the very reason tons of folks stay in. Otherwise far more folks would punch at 12 yrs or so when they start to get tired.

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.

Edited June 10, 2011 by nsplayr

[ThreeHoler]

@Sparticus:

It is not the easiest way to get a masters, but AU now offers masters+ACSC for Maj/Maj(s) and a masters to Capts. It is definitely the "cheapest"...zero cost to the member, no TA required. Not sure of the govt cost to run it...

[pbar]

I'd be perfectly willing to take a pay cut, loose some benefits, etc. if and only if Congress takes a chainsaw to the rest of the federal budget and eliminates stuff that we have no business paying for such as National Endowment for the Arts, PBS, Amtrak, farm subsidies, etc. and did a serious crackdown on Medicare and Social Security Disability fraud. Unfortunately, we servicemen and women will take it in the shorts while the taxpayers continue to be soaked for billions in Medicare fraud and wasteful stuff.

I can stomach the sacrifice in my pay and benefits to reduce the deficit for the good of the country. Afterall, I'm ready to sacrifice my life if need be. What I can't stomach is having to make that sacrifice on top of all the hassles of military service while Congress continues to waste vast, vast sums of our tax money to ensure they get re-elected.

[disgruntledemployee]

I will not volunteer for a pay cut. I will not volunteer for scaling back any benefits. Because our political leaders don't have the guts to cut everywhere else. They're too busy emailing photos of their dicks to each other. And when they're not doing that, they're looking out for themselves.

Out

[LoneStar]

What if at the end of the year - when they tell us that we "should" turn our money back in from our squadrons, they actually give us our money back the next year and don't penalize us for saving money. Restore a little confidence and maybe understand that some years expenses change. It could probably save us a bunch of money if we had to buy new desks every other year instead of every year...

[GoAround]

What if at the end of the year - when they tell us that we "should" turn our money back in from our squadrons, they actually give us our money back the next year and don't penalize us for saving money. Restore a little confidence and maybe understand that some years expenses change. It could probably save us a bunch of money if we had to buy new desks every other year instead of every year...

I think that's a great idea...something has to be done about wasting money for the sake of spending it. Years ago, one of my additional duties as a Lt in a flying Sq was "Resource Adviser" (RA). I handled all the money for the CC. At the end of the year, we spent all our money on unneeded items like furniture, computers, etc. Then, on the last week, we created a top 10 wish list for "fallout money". We had the forms filled out when given the OK from the Wing RA. One year, we bought 3 new 50 inch plasma screens with the fallout money, each costing $25K (included mounting, cabling, LAN, connectivity, wiring)...just because our Wing CC didn't like the grease boards we used for Sq flying scheduling. Well, the connectivity didn't work, so 2 were eventually used to broadcast CNN/Sportscenter and the other was used to play XBox...the DO was actually a helluva HALO player.

Talk about a waste of $75K...that same year, my sister lost her teaching job b/c there weren't enough state funds to pay for all of the teachers. Man, that $75K sure coulda been used better, but as Lone Star alluded to, it shoulda been sent back for things that really mattered.

[Guest]

I'd be perfectly willing to take a pay cut, loose some benefits, etc.

Pay before benefits, depending on the benefits. You can get pay back. Once gone, benefits go extinct.

[Masshole]

If deferred and in-kind benefits are not plausible anymore, what about giving people more choice and flexibility for their benefits? Since most do not stay in the full twenty years, could Congress adjust compensation to provide more money up front? I think a continuum-of-service model would help personnel move through active duty, reserve duty, and civilian careers with more ease. I just think it is more pragmatic to promote more choice and flexibility in how people in the military accept their benefits.

[nsplayr]

If deferred and in-kind benefits are not plausible anymore, what about giving people more choice and flexibility for their benefits? Since most do not stay in the full twenty years, could Congress adjust compensation to provide more money up front? I think a continuum-of-service model would help personnel move through active duty, reserve duty, and civilian careers with more ease. I just think it is more pragmatic to promote more choice and flexibility in how people in the military accept their benefits.

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.

[Fud]

I will not volunteer for a pay cut. I will not volunteer for scaling back any benefits. Because our political leaders don't have the guts to cut everywhere else. They're too busy emailing photos of their dicks to each other. And when they're not doing that, they're looking out for themselves.

Out

I will take a cut in pay once the president/senate/congress actually lead by example. Cutting their pensions and benefits would be a great start.

[nsplayr]

Like this?

[Bravo Kilo]

Like this?

Nope. Blocking a pay raise ≠ Pay cut

[Masshole]

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.

I am just in ROTC so I am out of the loop, but how exactly are they helping the situation?

Like this?

From the article:

The freeze, which Congress also passed last year, accomplishes little in a public-policy sense; the federal budget deficit is estimated at $1.3 trillion this year; the bill passed Tuesday would save less than $1 million.

Gee, thanks for the sacrifice. Maybe I am missing it, but where does it say they are going to take cuts to their pay and benefits?

[nsplayr]

Nope. Blocking a pay raise ≠ Pay cut

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 am just in ROTC so I am out of the loop, but how exactly are they helping the situation?

I'm not sure what you're saying here, can you be more specific?

Gee, thanks for the sacrifice. Maybe I am missing it, but where does it say they are going to take cuts to their pay and benefits?

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?

[ASUPilot]

Cutting military pay and benefits is like Uncle Sam stepping over a $100 bill to grab a dime. Let's cut the meat (sts) and save the fat...that makes sense. Hopefully we'll get slashed because we've been so lazy the past ten years.

[Ram]

Cutting military pay and benefits is like Uncle Sam stepping over a $100 bill to grab a dime. Let's cut the meat (sts) and save the fat...that makes sense. Hopefully we'll get slashed because we've been so lazy the past ten years.

This is the core of what pisses me off about the whole thing. The hardest working people in the country facing pay/benefit cuts...meanwhile the social entitlement programs shelter so many others...

[pawnman]

This is the core of what pisses me off about the whole thing. The hardest working people in the country facing pay/benefit cuts...meanwhile the social entitlement programs shelter so many others...

Well, the social entitlement program recipients represent a much larger electorate. 2 million people sprinkled across 50 states isn't much of a risk to anyone's re-election campaign.

But then, maybe I'm just cynical.

[nunya]

But then, maybe I'm just cynical.

The line between cynic and realist is so very fine, isn't it?

Edited June 19, 2011 by nunya

[Masshole]

I'm not sure what you're saying here, can you be more specific?

Poorly directed question, but the rest of your post addressed what I was driving at (what exactly is Congress doing?):

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?

This is the core of what pisses me off about the whole thing. The hardest working people in the country facing pay/benefit cuts...meanwhile the social entitlement programs shelter so many others...

"2." The government has enveloped an entire sub-society habituated on handouts which ultimately serves as a large percentage of voters.