The sacrifice of putting your life in harms way for 20 years, never being stable
any place to do things. I can only imagine it to being in limbo. The only
objective is the promise of retirement. The disillusion and betrayal, The
government better not mess with the Vet's.
I don't get it.The commander in chief takes hundreds of
millions for vacations, and campaign fund raising trips, but pensions are to be
cut?This is unpatriotic.
Nationwide, one average only 1% of the population serves in the military, but in
Utah has just half that number, and just 17% of that number serves a career.
This isn't about "saving money" otherwise, congress would reform
Social Security. This is about taking action against a very small number of
voters.In the 1990s, Congress tried to reduce the retirement program
for the military, and they found that the Services lost some of the "best
and brightest" professional service members, because the short-term risks to
their lives was no longer worth the diminished long-term security. This damaged
the quality of the professional NCO and Officer Corps, and was reversed within a
couple years.Many of these retirees have been injured from combat or
by hazardous duty, and have a difficult job finding a job that meets their
military skills. The military members that serve in the combat arms have even
more physical / job skill issues transitioning into the civilian employment.This isn't about "fairness." We should continue to
encourage a professional military. If we want really save money they would
"reform" Social Security, but too many voters (that vote) will fight
The politicians have short changed the system as most of them now have never
served in the military. Thanks for the generations of service for the men and
women who sacrificed their all and potentially all for other people to have
freedoms. The forked tongue of the politicians that have sworn to defend the
nation and people from despots soon forget the power that got them into
politics. If the opponents of WWI, WWII, Cold War and Korean wars had won their
wars, these politicians would not be in power without the military stalwarts who
work for the Commander-in-Chief's will. Congress can pay out
to the automobile and banker people in the billions if not effectively trillions
through other benefits but not for the heritage of a "few good people".
So soon or now at least for 40 years the military has been losing any prestige
they might have had from the best generation. Military generals and
admirals are all appointed by their politicians and beckon to their call and
will. The liberals at the academies have given into the rest of the world.
The thought of taking away these pensions makes me sick!
I an grateful for those who serve and have served--at least partly because it
means I don't have to do it.However, having been a civilian on
2 different Navy bases and worked with many brave military people, military
pensions that can start at age 40 or before are ridiculous unless you get
severely physically injured during your time of service (thus, PTSD sufferers
should have therapy available -but PTSD wouldn't count for pension purposes
IMO). A defined contribution per year would probably work better--especially for
those not promoted after a certain point who have to leave but could then take
with them what they've earned.Congress should do what
they've done with Social Security in the past: slowly ramp up the
retirement age when pensions start and slowly cut the benefits over time. This
will give people who are severely affected a chance to make adjustments as
needed and let people thinking of joining up at age 18 know what they're in
for. This would reduce some of the complaints from veteran groups who fear,
especially with Democrats in charge at the moment, that money will be
drastically cut without warning.
I for one will not criticize ever the pay and benefits that our military men and
women receive because it will never be enough. To have allowed this to happen
is inexcusable. They stepped over a dollar of saving to save a nickel on the
backs of our military is ridiculous. I personally do not see a problem with
military personnel especially active duty personnel retiring at age 40. The
stress that they are under the time away from family, it is the least that we
can do for them.
Veterns pensions can be cut, while benefits for the takers not makers go on the
rise. Just the cost of food stamps have gone up over 58% in the last three
years. Now a whole class of non productive citizenry will get free health care.
But the very people who answered the call of duty at all hours of the day and
night, on our own soil and far away places that even snakes would dare not
venture most sacrifice again. All at the likes of Chuck Hagel and a few lame
senators make retirees lose out again. Broken promises once again!
For all the bean counters who claim military compensation is comparable to
civilian jobs, they have failed to account for the fact military members have
the chance of being shot at, and the certainty of being involuntarily deployed
away from their families for extended periods, repeatedly. And, of being
uprooted to new locations, not of their choosing, every few years.Anyone who thinks this is such a good deal is welcome to march down to the
local recruiting office and sign up today!To cut ANY military
benefits before cutting pure welfare, and the billions of bloated wasteful pork
projects is nearly treasonous, and certainly short sighted.But,
since Bill Clinton "loathed the military" and Obama has proven he views
them only as campaign props and likely Republican voters to be disenfranchised,
we know that the Democrats view cuts to the military instead of freeloaders as
good politics.Remember, military members have taken an oath to
"protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies foreign and domestic." That may also disturb some Democrats.
One minor inaccuracy in the article mentions military members can use military
facilities for free, but can opt for off base care with no co-pays or costs.
Incorrect, if you use off base care, you pay a co-pay and a percentage of the
total cost. Not a huge deal, but just a clarification. I've been on
active duty for years, and I don't feel (and most don't) that we are
'owed' anything for serving. Its a volunteer force, and we volunteered
for whatever reason that might be. Minus 1% from inflation for retirees is not
terrible, especially since most are working second careers after leaving. I
think the frustration comes from, among many things, this is not what they were
promised. And when we see a ridiculous amount of spending in other areas, this
feels like a slap in the face. I'm planning my own savings and retirement,
not counting on Uncle Sam. If we want a professional force, bottom line is there
has to be a benefit for these guys to stay. Those benefits are slowly going
away and people will, and are, going to start going elsewhere.
AF Aggie pointed out one inaccuracy in this story and there were others, but the
issue that I have with this action is one of honesty and moral compass. We (I
am a military retiree) were made certain promises. Over the years the
government has welched on many of those promises, because it was expedient and
had little political cost to the politicians. I was promises "free"
medical care for life - what I got is far from free. Believe me it is better
than nothing, but the promise was "free". I was promised a retirement
if I stayed in for 20 years. If I left after 19 years and 5 months I knew that
I got nothing. That was the promise - 20 years retirement, less than 20 years
nothing. The government which is in reality rich men and women who have no
moral compass, ethics or honesty, has no problem lying to the military. They
have no problem taking away promised benefits. Why in recent years has it
become the norm for politicians to be amoral, unethical, and dishonest?
Don't make promises you can't keep!
The SEAL Team Six Member who capped "UBL" recently "retired"
short of his 20 years of Service too. He got a hand shake from Uncle Sam but no
pension either. I understand his years of dealing out and cheating Death were
very hard on his body. Much like Professional Athletes, one's body wears
out before the 20 year clock runs out. Remember alot of our Servicemen and women
have been nearly continously at war since 2001 (12 years) if not longer.
Before we go to war we need to start asking if we are willing to pay for it.
Taking pay that has already been earned is wrong. Let congress give up its own
retirement before cutting the retirement of those who have fought our wars. Let
taxes be raised, yes taxes raised before we cut pay that veterans have already
EARNED. Next time avoid war if you feel you can't afford it. What are we
still doing in Afghanistan?
How long must a member of congress serve before they get retirement?How long must a President of the United States serve before he (pronoun
carefully selected due to the gender of all past presidents)gets a retirment?
What percentage of their final pay do they get?When does
the retirement pension for them start?Time for Congress and
Presidents to lead from the front although it is much safer to lead from behind.
Keeping our promise to the veterans may mean we can't have all the toys in
our arsenal we would otherwise wish to have. But that's okay, this can
compensated for by being more cautious, less aggressive in our foreign policy.
Measure twice cut once. We can't have it all. We don't deserve to take
or to have what doesn't belong to us. We can make due.
4.5 billlion dollars to support the current 2 million retired veterens. Really?
That is Obamas petty cash stash for his vacation and golf outings. Our current
annual budget is in the 3 trillion range. Our total military budget is in the
600 million range. And this disgrace of a Secretary of Defense is looking at
the "retired" military for budget cuts? Democrats!!!!And
Don't tell me Hagal is a Republican. He is a sell out.
The Republicans in the Senate proposed a change to the budget which would had
kept the military pensions untouched and instead cut welfare money given to
people living illegally in the country. Every Democratin the Senate voted
against that proposal. It's pretty sad when some politicians would make