AP Asks: Are Military Pensions Too ‘Generous’?
- Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:35am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — It sounds like a pretty good deal: Retire at age 38 after 20 years of work and get a monthly pension of half your salary for the rest of your life. All you have to do is join the military. But, as the nation continues on a fiscal path of insecurity, is it time to reassess this model?
As the nation tightens its budget belt, the century-old military retirement system has come under attack as unaffordable, unfair to some who serve and overly generous compared with civilian benefits.
That very notion, laid out in a Pentagon-ordered study, sent a wave of fear and anger through the ranks of current and retired military members when it was reported in the news media this month.
If pensions are to be cut, Congress should go first, one person said on the Internet.
“Obviously, we’re concerned about it,” said retired Gen. Gordon Sullivan, an Army chief of staff in the 1990s who heads the nonprofit educational group Association of the United States Army.
The Defense Department put out a statement this week stressing that it was only a proposal and no changes will be made anytime soon.
“While the military retirement system, as with all other compensation, is a fair subject of review for effectiveness and efficiency, no changes to the current retirement system have been approved,” Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said. “And no changes will be made without careful consideration for both the current force and the future force.” MSNBC has more:
The upset was sparked by a nonbinding recommendation from the Defense Business Board, the Pentagon’s private sector advisory panel. A July 21 draft report that could be finalized this month recommended pensions be scrapped and replaced with a 401(k)-type defined contribution plan.
The board members are from big businesses – experts, the Pentagon says, in executive management, corporate governance, audit and finance, human resources, economics, technology and health care.
Their report was strictly about dollars and cents, part of a review of Pentagon spending started under Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s predecessor, Robert Gates.
It didn’t mention intangibles: Would such a change make military jobs less desirable? Is it possible to compare military and civilian employment? How much does a grateful nation feel it owes to the less than 1 percent of the population that volunteers to fight America’s wars?
The report noted that military retirees start collecting pensions immediately upon leaving the service, rather than at age 65. That’s a benefit without peer in the private sector, although there’s a parallel in government. Some city police departments start retirement payments immediately, for instance.
The report also said:
-Members of the military who retire before 20 years get nothing. Those who work 20 years get pensions worth 50 percent of their pay. That amount ramps up to 87.5 percent for 35 years of service.
-That means 83 percent of service members don’t get a pension, even after serving for 10 or 15 years, while 17 percent do get one.
-Though the job’s risks are cited as a reason for keeping the 20-year system, most troops who see combat don’t stay that long.
-Low-cost health care premiums for retirees on top of pensions make total retirement benefits “significantly more generous than civilian programs” and more expensive.
-The program’s costs are “rising at an alarming rate” and “future liability will grow from $1.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion” by 2034.
The report recommended a new mandatory savings system for all personnel but with the government making contributions comparable to the highest level of civilian plans. There’d be an option for individuals to contribute too; payments wouldn’t start until age 60 to 65. Pentagon contributions would be larger for those who had family separations and other unusual duty and double for years spent in a combat zone. The report said there would be no impact on existing retirees or fully disabled vets.
The current system hasn’t been changed materially in more than 100 years. It was designed when people didn’t live as long, second careers were rare and military pay was not competitive with civilian pay, the report said. It said skills used by soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are now transferable to the civilian world and that many people find second careers after retiring in their 40s.
That means they collect the pension as well as income from second careers.
Sullivan dismissed the idea that the average military retiree becomes enriched by the system, saying few go to work for big defense contractors or find other high-paying jobs. More commonly, a retiree might get about $1,400 monthly in pension pay and a second career that earns $50,000 or $60,000 annually, he said.
But holding change at bay may not be possible. Officials have said that finding savings in personnel costs like health care and pensions is a possibility. Everything is on the table as the department looks for some $350 billion in savings called for in recent legislation to decrease the national debt.
“It’s the kind of thing you have to consider,” Panetta said this week, adding any change must be done in a way that doesn’t break faith with the men and women in uniform.
Such benefits were once sacrosanct – part of the bargain the nation makes with those who put their lives on the line to protect it. Many opposed to any change cite the profound sacrifices troops and their families have made over the past decade, with repeated tours of duty, a crisis of ballooning military suicides and hundreds of thousands of cases of mental health problems, just to mention a few effects of war.
“If we want an all-volunteer force, the bottom line is that we‘re going to have to take care of these people who were willing to do what the bulk of people weren’t willing to do,” Sullivan said. “Going to war is dangerous – you can get killed doing it. And the question is, Are the American people willing to recognize the sacrifices of these young people?”
Money for troops has flown freely from Congress with the tacit support of taxpayers over the decade, when pay was raised, as the report notes, to “higher than that of average civilians with the same education.”
There was no public pushback against special recruiting bonuses, the GI Bill for college tuition and expenses for health care and other needs of troops and their families.
The question now is whether the depth of support widely expressed for the troops will be tested by the different times. U.S. financial woes are at center stage as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. Pensions are becoming a thing of the past; more risky market-whipped 401(k) programs are the civilian norm.
Will taxpayers want to continue for troops the special and costly programs that they themselves are losing?
Says Sullivan: “Maybe. Maybe not.”
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 684 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 647 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 314 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 172 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 210 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 172 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (339)
justasoldier
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:03amAs of right now, if you retire as an E7 (Sergeant First Class in the Army) which is average, with 20 years of active service, Your pension would be $2094.60 per month. (that does not include VA medical benefits) Is that too much to ask for someone who more than likely deployed multiple times to combat, watched their friends be maimed and killed, and has missed countless birthdays, anniversaries, births, deaths, first steps, first words, and a whole cornucopia of events that civilians take for granted.
The Federal Government routinely oversteps it’s Constitutional boundaries with things it does, but providing for national defense is one of the things it SHOULD do, and if a Servicemember dedicates 20 years of his or her life towards it, they should be compensated.
Report Post »justasoldier
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:09amAnd…at 12 years Active Federal Service (14 for pay) I knew the last time I signed my extension, that I was in it for 20, or I’d get out and get nothing but GI Bill benefits.
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:10amThe really shameful aspect of this is that nobody questions the federal employees pensions (civilian) which are probably double of what the average military person gets. These are the pensions that should get eliminated before any talk of cutting military pensions.
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:12am“That means they collect the pension as well as income from second careers.”
This second career is also missing 20+ years of senority and pay that goes along with it. We have sacrificed the civilian pay for 20+ years and are mildly compensated for what we gave up. To save $320 billion, closing down a few (if not all) of our unnecessary wars and a few (if not all) of our overseas bases that do nothing but incite the general public around such bases and neighboring countries that don’t want the threat of our invasion. When the S. Korean presidential platforms center around the occupation of the US forces on their soil, I think we have done enough spliting of countries through our sheer presences alone.
Report Post »Mrtoohappy
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:24am, Congress should go first. This says it all. They are looking at the wrong retirement system and beenies.
Report Post »I_Object
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:31amThank you for your service. And to answer your question – there isn’t enough money on earth to pay for the sacrifices made by our honorable men and women in uniform. I think the idea that anything they get may be considered “unfair” is unconscionable. They all deserve to be treated and payed like the heroes they are.
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:43amMy husband retired after 20 years in the Navy as an E-6. We get around $1400 a month. I’m glad he was young enough to get another job, because you can’t live on that. And we’re penalized for that come tax time. We were originally told we didn’t make enough for it to be taxed. But every time I file my taxes, it asks if I rolled over any into an IRA. I have to say no, because we use it to LIVE on. It lowers what we get back, or makes us pay even more. I was lucky this year and only owed about $40. My FIL gets more in social security than we do in military retirement.
Report Post »MySacredHonor
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:43amAP can kiss my plump white backside… our troops deserve better than they are getting! They put their very lives on the line for the sake of the rest of us, and they deserve at MINIMUM 10X what any union wank gets! so AP can go pee up a rope!
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:45amAND, because I was only in for 4 years, I don’t qualify for ANY retirement. In the congress you only have to be in for 5 years and get benefits for life.
Report Post »Mil-Dot
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:47amAre welfare benefits too generous? Yes. I guess AP wants to take money from vets so they can give more to the deadbeats among us.
Report Post »Patrick in AZ
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:50amAs a retired 20 year E-7 – I would disagree with the monthly retirement amount you state; it is $200+ a month too high (I wish I got as much as you say). As for service members who don’t do 20 years to earn their retirement, the military now offers TSP (government 401k) and they can contribute to that just like any other employee
Report Post »andyrm
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:01amI am severely pissed about this! Military pay should be the last thing we look at to make cuts. If not for our military personnel and their families, where would we be? Sure there’s plenty of cuts to make in the defense budget, but their pay should be last, in fact, I don‘t think it’s enough. So, let me get this straight… Let’s not make any type of welfare reforms, but let’s cut the military pay??? WTF!!!!! What about career politicians who jump from municipal, to state, to federal levels, picking up separate pensions along the way? I am so frustrated with government right now! I’m not sure why we give so much money and benefits to elected officials.How long do they have to serve to receive their pensions??? Crazy!!!
Report Post »Whostolemypig
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:04amIf the government won’t take care of career soldiers, they’ll drop your average senior citizen like a hot potato. After 20 years of military BS, these guys deserve every cent they can get.
Report Post »ArmyStandard
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:07amOver stepped and out of line. The Military isn’t a day job, especially when you become a leader. We and our families sacrafice plenty to earn the benefits we recieve when we get out. And that’s IF we do 20 years.
Report Post »Live_Free_orDie
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:11am@hauschild
Report Post »Where do you get your info…Federal pensions are crap for low level employees under the new system. I pay 50% of my Healthcare, and 100% of my Vision and Dental. BTW, I have 36yrs ACTDU/Res Duty combined and will retire W3 with about $2,400 and may get $1,800 from my Fed pension, if I figured out the voodoo formula right. The Military deserves more than what they are getting, especially when we pay the morons in Congress for doing nothing and so called hero Athletes big money for playing games.
jblovesAmerica
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:21amLiberals hate the military and what they stand for.
Report Post »Willing to do anything to destroy that.
Should we not be asking-why pay Senators and Congressmen the pensions and benefits they receive instead of asking the military.
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:24am@justasoldier,
“The Federal Government routinely oversteps it’s Constitutional boundaries with things it does, but providing for national defense is one of the things it SHOULD do, and if a Servicemember dedicates 20 years of his or her life towards it, they should be compensated.”
All government pensions are too generous, because all of government – including our soldiers – are for the benefit of the private sector; That’s why government exists. And not only are pesions a drain on people’s wealth, but the drain becomes greater with the number of pensions.
This is YOUR money, citizen, that is collected as taxes. When government workers become private citizens, they are no longer entitled to continue to take your money in taxes. The people did not establish the USA to serve the government, but to secure their inalienable right to individual liberty.
Besides, when people are free from government intervention in the economy, and when government does their job of protecting property rights, MANY more job opportunities are available, and MUCH more wealth is created – such that, for example, when our troops become private citizens again, employers could afford to take the economic risk of trying out a wounded hero (absent the Americans with Disabilities Act).
See here.
Anti-trust, Anti-truth
http://mises.org/daily/436
And here.
Thought Controllers Call Ron Paul “Extreme”
Report Post »(on the Americans with Disabilities Act)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FFhS
missionarydad
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:41amOur soldiers deserve every penny they get. AP needs to ask the same question about Presidents, Senators and Congressmen as they are the ones who have too big of pensions. I do not think any elected officials should receive any benefits after they leave office. Many make more money after they leave office from speeches and special interest groups and becoming lobbyist than they ever made while actually in office.
Leave our brave soldiers alone! They were promised these pensions for their entire military careers and should only be offered more generous pensions not less. Politicians on the other hand have already done enough bloodsucking and double dipping and all their pensions should be revoked.
Report Post »Charsofar
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:48amOne issue we need to remember is that a very small % of the military are put in harms way. If you listen to the press you would think that 90% of all military personnel are being shot at. With that said I realize that if you are a member of the military you could be required to face combat..not your choice but that of the military itself. We are about to the point of having a mercenary force now (most don’t serve because it is patriotic) so let’s just offer the pay and benefits that are necessary to get men and women to do the job; just like it is done in business.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:59amI don’t think I can add anything to the sentiments posted here except to say, thank you for your service and,…..You are NOT JUST A SOLDIER to real Americans. You and your families are a treasure to us! And you deserve all the respect and care that a grateful country can give to someone who is willing to give their last true measure of devotion for us.
Report Post »Saying thank you to you should not just be in word only. But more importantly, in deed. How does one compensate for all that is lost.
My Dad lived in extreme poverty with the loss of his right leg and family, after serving in three campaigns in multiple countries during WWII. He and all of our brave service men and women deserve better.
rangerp
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:01amI am sitting at 22 years towards retirement, the first five were enlisted. Got three trips to combat, and will pin LTC in Nov.
Would like to think I will get my retirement in a few years, but there are no guarantees in life. Not much I can gurantee, but this I know. If the elected government of this great nation, elects to take my retirement, I will go out and get a job, and continue to provide for my family. The top ten percent of my pay will go to tithe, and will give what I can to help the missionaries that my church supports.
Will not need a welfare check, do not want a cut of what a rich man has earned. My back is still strong, can still swing a hammer, and not afraid to sweat.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:05amMaybe the military should unionize, then scream and yell till they get the benefits they really deserve. How about all of them showing up on their boss’s lawn, the White House, and protest till they get what they want. Then show up in Congress and demand they get the same pay and benefits that Congress gets. Maybe that would get the point across!
Report Post »johnsell
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:22amOne of the difficulties in trying to make a judgement as to what the military should get compensated for is that the decision is not able to be made based on a business cost basis as the government‘s resources are based on a percentage of the public’s income, therefore it has to be determined what we as a nation are willing to pay individuals to provide us with a military. When we had the draft, procuring soldiers at any wage was not a problem, however as we changed to an all voluntary force, the pay and benefits has to be enough to attract soldiers willing to risk their lives. I believe it now comes down to how much does the government have to offer to procure a soldier to do a particular job? If we cut the 20 year entitlement will we still be able to entice soldiers to join or will we have to return to the draft? Not an easy decision to make without data.
Report Post »LookTowardsTheLight
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:22amI have never served our country and for that I will label MYSELF a coward. All I can say is that this is one pension system that should NOT BE TOUCHED OR SCRUTINIZED unless it leads to an increase for all these brave men and women. For my second job, I work in a big box retailer and when I see soldiers in uniform come in I make sure that I go up to he or she and shake their hand and thank them for the service to our country. For those who served who have posted here, I can not thank you enough for being at the front lines defending the country I love.
As for the AP…go make love to yourselves >.<
Report Post »Bill in Texas
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:25amWhen I signed up there was no TSP, so the 50% deal was a great deal. The TSP started 4 years before I retired and I signed up once it was available. So now if today’s service people contribute to TSP they can at least take that with them when they leave along with all of the VA benefits.
Report Post »50% at 20 is the least my nation can do.
Oh and don’t get me started on the ex wife’s share. She takes 45% of my 50 for doing nothing. So I am lucky to see $1200 a month in that retainer pay.
Scaredfuzz
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:41am@NHwinter:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 49 > § 976>(b):
“It shall be unlawful for a member of the armed forces, knowing of the activities or objectives of a particular military labor organization”
As military members we have no power to negotiate, bargain or protest anything that happens.
I look at my dad who is a retired E-7 and has a second job, and we never hurt for money but we weren’t “rich” by any stretch, just your average middle class family. And I just recently commissioned as 2nd Lt. in the AF, and was ordered to leave two days after graduating college to start training, I have already missed my brothers graduation and had to move my wedding forward to get married in two weeks instead of two months. Now I’m not looking for pity I choose to join and knew full well what I was getting into, however when I look around and see unions in the federal government making twice what I make and taking home a larger percentage of their retirement or congressmen taking home a pension after serving one term, it makes me slightly upset that they look to cut the retirements of military members first.
Report Post »Scaredfuzz
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:43amLeft out part of the law I posted:
(b) It shall be unlawful for a member of the armed forces, knowing of the activities or objectives of a particular military labor organization—
(1) to join or maintain membership in such organization; or
Report Post »(2) to attempt to enroll any other member of the armed forces as a member of such organization.
LookTowardsTheLight
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:48am@Scaredfuzz
Reading posts like yours is why I hang a “Union NO!” sign on my office door. Congratulations on your wedding by the way :)
Report Post »kalli
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:04pmNo way is this too much to ask! Soldiers should make at least what the leaders in DC make and receive no less than the benefits and pension these lawmakers receive. Our soldiers are putting their lives on the line 24/7. As one who has family members who have served and serving now, a nephew Navy Seal who died in the chopper crash, and a grandson leaving next month to begin serving, I am appalled that the first place the politicians always want to cut first is on our military. God bless our soldiers for serving this nation, and thank you, soldier, for your service.
Report Post »SgtGus515
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:17pmThe actual amount given in a pension after 20 years is not 50%. That is what was advertised to me when I enlisted, but it had already been downgraded to 40%. After 20 years an E7 would recieve $1675.68 per month.
Report Post »gardening101
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:19pmI notice there is no mention of congressional pensions. That is what should be looked at…
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:22pm@NHwinter,
“Maybe the military should unionize, then scream and yell till they get the benefits they really deserve. How about all of them showing up on their boss’s lawn, the White House, and protest till they get what they want.”
In a Constitutional, representative Republic, the people are the boss, not the White House.
Also, The United States of America was already founded as a “Union” – that’s why our Founders called it the UNITED States of America; We are already united under the belief that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights – you might say that is our “Union” policy.
And our Union of the several sovereign States under the Constitution has a set of protocols for affecting political changes in representation, which is through a Republican form of government. The rule of our Constitutional law precludes government-protected Unions because it doesn’t recognize collective rights – only individual rights.
And since these Unions attempt to subvert the rule of law by going around our Constitutional protocols, they are committing treason (we are a representative Republic, not a Democracy).
Report Post »justasoldier
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:59pmOne more thing… Moving to all TSP (401k) plan amounts to nothing more than a privatization of Military Pensions, subject to the same market fluctuations of other private retirement plans. Weren‘t there a whole mess of folks screaming about Dubya’s call to privatize social security? So…it’s okay for Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen, but it’s not okay for Joe Taxpayer. Got ya.
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:06pm@Charsofar
Have you served? Yes a small percentage are put in harm’s way. They get hazard pay for their contribution. the rest of us are away from family, work holidays and spouses are not guarenteed to be stationed together. I (as a single person) volunteered to switch days with people with families on holidays. For four years, I saw my parents twice, and once was emergency leave when my grandmother died.
Report Post »Coffeehead
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:31pmAgree. Of all the money we waste on teachers (some are oafs) and desk workers who retire with 60 to 70k per year (public sector of course) and full medical. The troops are not overpaid to start (like public sector union thugs are) and deserve a good pension for putting their lives on the line. No I never served. My lottery number at the end of VietNam was pretty high, but I sure respect the men and women who serve.
Report Post »Griffin1340
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:33pmSo as you say justasoldier an E7 makes about 42K a year + benefits. I as a civilian make about 40K a year and don’t have to…
1. Live out of a rucksack in the field.
2. Do without my family for months/years at a time.
3. Be required to attend advanced military schools to attain the rank of E7..pldc,bnoc,anoc.
4. Be required to follow standards of fitness and appearance.
The equivalent of the rank of E7 in the civilian world would be an assistant manager or supervisor in a medium/large factory…and I think you can bet the civilian pay would be better, for less risk.
I commend anyone who serves and defends our great nation. Our retired veterans deserve the retirement that they rightly earn.
By the way…lets have our politicians give up their pensions first!
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:47pmAs a retired military officer, I feel qualified to be in this discussion. How many of those who take shots at military retirement benefits were willing to give up a minimum of twenty years of there life, go wherever you were told to go and possibly get shot or shot least shot at? How many of them started their civilian careers at 38 – 40 years old and could finally start buying a house at that age? How many of them missed their child’s first words or fist steps along with missing every holiday for years on end? How many of them cheered when they were told they could no longer work more than 80 hours a week after just finishing a week of more than 100 working hours? How many were called out at all hours of the day or night regardless of weather of day of the week to practice defending this country? I could go on much longer, but suffice it to say WE EARNED EVERY DAMNED DIME!
Report Post »Saveouramerica
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:50pmIam an E7 with 23 years and multiple combat tours , Retired now for 13 years, I recieve 1800.00 plus a month. My wife is disabled so I cant work. with the result of this pension I duly deserve, Iam surviving on economy where I see my neighbors loosing homes. They lived in thier cushy homes with thier multiple degrees and spent theier money like water through a sive. I spent time sharing a shelter half with my battle buddy, while my wife and kids lived stateside worrying about my well being, There is no other job in this country that can compare to career of a soldier, sailor, airmen or marine. Jobs may transfer but never the enviroment or events that you work in. Killing enemies or defending CP never translated to job in the States. I guess thats why Napalotano Called me a Terrorist.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:36pm@Jim in Houston,
“As a retired military officer, I feel qualified to be in this discussion. How many of those who take shots at military retirement benefits were willing to give up a minimum of twenty years of there life, go wherever you were told to go and possibly get shot or shot least shot at?”
Much respect to a man and a hero.
But surely you would agree that our Founders were heros of your caliber; And yet their cause was to secure individual inalienable rights both against other countries AND against encroachments of government on the rights of citizens.
The Constitution provides for supplying the military needs at the federal level, as well as for protecting the states (citizens were not taxed directly) from unnecessary taxes. The role of government is NOT to reward heroism, but to secure the rights of its citizens.
In fact, a couple of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence were these:
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.”
It is because soldiers’ compensation (not a wage, by the way) is payed with taxpayer money, that all government pensions are destructive of the peoples’ liberties.
If we return to our Constitution, the free market is able to provide the greatest number of jobs.
Report Post »bigbear_awake
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:57pmIt should take all of the House and congress and Presidents pay and retirement and divide it up with our service men and women for Serving..
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 4:17pmThe problem begins when asked, “Is everyone who retires after 20 years an E-7?”
Report Post »Of course not: some retire lower, some retire higher. What does a 20 year Captain get compared to a general? Or an E-9, or an E-5?
But seeing your comment on the amount they recieve, sure makes me wish I’d hung on another ten years. Hell, I never made that $2000 a month in the civilian world let alone in retirement!
Secret Squirrel
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 4:52pm.
I think a soldier deserves whatever he/she was promised.
I have no problem with a pension after 20 years.
However, it should not start at 38, rather retirement age.
A soldier with skills is valuable in industry. They’re disciplined leaders.
Report Post »I see no reason they can’t work until 58(?) before collecting.
Then, have two pensions!
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 5:12pm@Wolf,
“But seeing your comment on the amount they recieve, sure makes me wish I’d hung on another ten years. Hell, I never made that $2000 a month in the civilian world let alone in retirement!”
Please understand, soldiers, that government is NOT the place to find a job. It’s very existence is due to taxes, and it is not a market player – which means that it is something entirely separate from the economy.
Government’s sole purpose is to secure the inalienable rights of each citizen and to treat each citizen equally under the law.
Report Post »michael48
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 5:23pmcongressman…after ONE TERM…100% pay=$175,000.00 per year and 100% Medical…FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…20 years Calif. Police Capt…$110,000.00 per year…100% Medical …FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!….before you go after SOLDIERS, maybe you should check out what the GOV. GUMBA CLASS gives itself, WHILE NEVER TELLING THE TAX PAYER…disgusting and will probably REMAIN DISGUSTING…FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »dhuge67
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 6:01pmCertainly not too much to ask. You should get more.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 6:15pmMy Brother-in-Arms, don’t worry.
This is just the Washington Monument argument.
Report Post »NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 7:48pmI spent four years in the Coast Guard during the late 60‘s and early 70’s. I couldn’t take the military way of doing things and got out.
Report Post »I will say that anyone who can take it for 20-30 years deserves all they were promised and more. I am tired of vet bennies being the subject of cuts. The government made a contract with these guys, live up to it. If you want to change it, fine, but it doesn’t change anyone under contract before you do.
And, yes, let‘s look at congress’s pensions. I”m sure we could do a lot of cutting there, like all of it!
Scaredfuzz
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 7:57pm@ A Doctors Labor…
I can’t quite follow what your getting at with the founding fathers and the constitution and how military pensions encroach on the citizens rights.
In fact I can’t think of one government institution that is bound by the law more strictly from encroaching on citizens rights than the military. And its not only the law but the schooling we receive, pretty much the U.S. and England are the only two countries where officers are taught to think about their actions and to follow the LAWS not the LEADERS when there are contradictions. As officers we take an oath to the CONSTITUTION, not the president, congress or any other power.
Report Post »Av8tor056
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:01pmhauschild
The really shameful aspect of this is that nobody questions the federal employees pensions (civilian) which are probably double of what the average military person gets. These are the pensions that should get eliminated before any talk of cutting military pensions.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry, the unions would whine.
Report Post »usnpops
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:49pmI got out on 20 in 1972 and Base was $640. Got a check for $320 per month.
And after my 20 years of service, and the sacrifices I and my family made, and on occasion being put in harms way. Felt that I earned it for my lifetime.
Something that people nowadays do not understand. I was on the list to be drafted and went into the Navy when my number came up. Always liked the uniform better than the Army. :)
If it was mandatory that everybody serve like in Switzerland, it would make sure every citizen was fully aware of what a person gives up for Honor, Duty and Country.
Report Post »CharlesMartel
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:03pmYou didn’t mention the “unpaid overtime”.
When I was a 1Lt, I worked in an office that was about half officers and half civilians. The civilian Deputy Director asked everyone to post their duty hours on their cubicle entrance. One Captain posted “24/7″ and the rest of the military people did the same. There is no overtime to be unpaid.
There is no civilian job that considers you on duty, day or night, unless you are on leave. Their is no other employer that counts weekends or National Holidays as vacation days when you are on leave.
There is no civilian job that can order you to leave your family on short notice to go to a war zone and put you in jail of you refuse.
Once I had an ignorant (lacking knowledge) person who told me that I was lucky because I could go to the Commissary and just sign for food.
I said “That’s right, but it has to be on a special form.”
So he asked, “What form is that?”
I responded, “Those special forms that come in a checkbook!”
Report Post »Mil Mom
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:34pmre : The report noted that military retirees start collecting pensions immediately upon leaving the service, rather than at age 65. That’s a benefit without peer in the private sector, although there’s a parallel in government. Some city police departments start retirement payments immediately, for instance.
Report Post »***
Outright misleading, I have a family member who enlisted as a high school senior at 17, at 37 he will have his 20 yrs in, but if he were to retire, he couldn’t begin collecting benefits until after either 40 or 45, his wife says that he tells her, he may as well stay in until that age because after that long in the military it will be a huge adjustment to life without it. The pension will give him the ability to adjust easier because he won’t feel the financial pressure to immediately find employment possibly out of his area of expertise. (They don’t all work for defense contractors.)
They also fail to point out that in order to advance in the military, each officer needs to continue his education, No officers without masters degrees!
With all the danger and separation from family they endure it is small compensation. He was unable to visit his parents or plan events with his grown kids for an 8 yr period because of the line of work he was doing for the military! The family which stays together under such situations deserves the retirement promised. Not to mention physical problems caused by the hardships they endure when active in the military.
Mil Mom
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:55pm@Charsofar
Report Post »Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:48am
One issue we need to remember is that a very small % of the military are put in harms way. If you listen to the press you would think that 90% of all military personnel are being shot at. With that said I realize that if you are a member of the military you could be required to face combat..not your choice but that of the military itself
*****
Tell that to anyone serving at Ft. Hood, the shooter didn’t bother to ask whether they were combat troops before he opened fire; it’s doubtful his copy-cat would have either, if he hadn’t been caught.
There are “Sleeper Cells” found all over the US, (Web search N Jersey Terrorist Attack) and to just wear the uniform for their country is to assume a risk. (Again ask about the recruiters who’ve been shot or bombed in the last 10 yrs.)
Everyone who trains as a soldier, sailor, airman, marine, etc. is totally prepared for the thought he/she is fully recognizable to the enemies, { MAYBE EVEN A TARGET TO THEM! } AT HOME AND ABROAD! THE FACT THAT THEY, DAY BY DAY GO ABOUT THEIR ASSIGNED DUTIES FAITHFULLY DESERVES TO BE [WELL] COMPENSATED !!!
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:00pm@Scaredfuzz,
“I can’t quite follow what your getting at with the founding fathers and the constitution and how military pensions encroach on the citizens rights.”
Pensions, as with all government duties (whether lawful or otherwise), come from taxpayers – no government exists without an already existent private sector deciding to fund a government. This is why governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
What pensions do is reverse the role of government and citizen, by presuming that the citizen is to pay tribute to members of government. This is a gross violation of individual inalienable rights. We do not pay tribute to our government. Their compensation (not a wage) is to be according to law.
What we’ve lost sight of in this country – because of a concerted effort on the part of collectivists, by the way (Progressives, Marxists, etc.) – is that Capitalism is the only economic system, to the extent that it is embraced, that creates wealth and treats people with equality. CAPITALISM IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH protectionist policies such as Corporatism, Anti-Trust legislation, subsidies, forced Unionization, bailouts, or the redistribution of wealth (i.e. Marxism).
Please see here.
Anti-trust, Anti-truth
http://mises.org/daily/436
And here.
Thought Controllers Call Ron Paul Extreme
Report Post »(on the Americans with Disabilities Act)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FFhSr1A1do#t=21m13s
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:35pmAnd then there’s this, from our Founders.
Federalist Papers #41:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
“Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added.”
Report Post »Mil Mom
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:48pm@justasoldier
Report Post »Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:59pm
One more thing… Moving to all TSP (401k) plan amounts to nothing more than a privatization of Military Pensions, subject to the same market fluctuations of other private retirement plans. Weren‘t there a whole mess of folks screaming about Dubya’s call to privatize social security? So…it’s okay for Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen, but it’s not okay for Joe Taxpayer. Got ya
***
You notice what else nobodies mentioning, REMEMBER THE BIG PUSH AFTER THE STOCK MARKET CRASH (08) EVERYONE WAS TALKING ABOUT PAYING 401k’S & IRA’s A SMALL AMOUNT ON THE $ AND PUTTING THEM INTO THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM? Guess what, (”It’s Back!!! ) it didn’t get much press, but was proposed again this Congress, and I‘ve read that if it doesn’t get passed, there’s already and Executive Order written to do so! This bunch doesn’t much care for our Military as it historically has been, THEY WANT THE CHANGE THEY BELIEVE IN! (And that‘s all that’ll be left of military pensions!!)
Meantime From me & mine, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!
Mil Mom
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 12:13am@bigbear_awake
Report Post »Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:57pm
It should take all of the House and congress and Presidents pay and retirement and divide it up with our service men and women for Serving
****
I agree fully, however, how about giving it to those who didn’t make their 20 yrs because of disabilities, ( more if wounded in action, less, if simply having served and developed a disabilitity.)
Then leave the regular retirement just as promised, PLUS A LOWER TAX RATE FOR SERVICEMEN & VETERANS! (not just a deduction or loophole!)
Mil Mom
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 12:30am@doctorslaborisnotmyright
Report Post »re : What pensions do is reverse the role of government and citizen, by presuming that the citizen is to pay tribute to members of government. This is a gross violation of individual inalienable rights. We do not pay tribute to our government. Their compensation (not a wage) is to be according to law.
****
Most of us differentiate in America between Military and Government worker, the Government worker makes rules for citizens to follow, or enforces those made by others. The American Military is a follower of rules, and only the Pentagon is at the top, (You must remember this but probably don’t realize run-of-the-mill citizens are aware.) Therefore, giving a military Retirement is not the same as a Government worker (Civilian)’s retirement! It would be different if someone DID declare Martial Law, probably more of us would resent the military, depending on the cause! As is, we appreciate the Constitutional restrictions which they (and you at one time) respect.
Thank You for your past service in uniform. (If only we didn’t need to pay tribute, I’m certain that was never our founders intentions.)
Mil Mom
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 12:46am@ratpackrosey
Report Post »re : They need to be careful with the benefits that they want to take away, it just might come back and bite them in there ass. Remember we invade countries and kill the enemy.
***
Be VEWWWYYY, VEWWWYYY, CAWEFUL! Remember Janet Neopolitan (The other flavors were all gone!) has already labeled you a TERRORISM RISK SEVERAL TIMES! Freedom of speech is one thing you’ve been defending throughout your service, but NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING YOU HAVE WITH THIS BUNCH!
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 12:53am@Mil Mom,
“Most of us differentiate in America between Military and Government worker, the Government worker makes rules for citizens to follow, or enforces those made by others.”
Our Founders never made this distinction. All of government is for the protection of individual inalienable rights; Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
Again, see here.
Federalist Papers #41
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
“Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added.”
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 10:50am@Mil Mom
When I came into the military in 1984, I traveled in my dress blues. During the 4 years I was in they changed that so that military were supposed to travel in civilian clothes. After I got out, they required all military to get a passport, the military ID no longer served as a passport.
Report Post »Scaredfuzz
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 11:48am@ A Doctor:
That’s why the defense budget must be re-approved every year. By setting that precedence it is understood that the military does not have a minimum standing strength or that it isn’t immune to being downsized.
Report Post »jhaydeng
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 3:01pmSuck it AP!!!! What a joke!!! How about is the Ass Press a bunch of j-offs? Don’t look too deep!
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 3:02pm“SOLDIER” Are you trying to tell me that the average Army E-7 now makes some $4200 a month BASE PAY????? Granted, I’ve been retired for about 16 years, but the pay hasn’t increased THAT much in 16 years. Something tells me you’re not in the military at all.
Report Post »Today’s retirees only get 35% of BASE PAY, not 50%, and that’s not a full paycheck either since full pay also includes rations and housing allowance (housing for living outside of the limited base housing at most facilities). So even if one were to factor in all of the things that the AP story left out intentionally, A person retiring today maybe gets about 30% of their actual paycheck each month after retiring.
Oh, and that stuff about getting 87.5% of their pay at 35 years….well, only a handfull of enlisted actually make it to 30 years (senior enlisted only), and I’ve heard of VERY few officers making it that long! The AP story is highly inflated and slanted to make military retirees look much better off than they actually are.
Personal story. Monthly pay at 20 years was $2000/month..first retirement check the next month was for $836. My base pay at the time was $1889/month plus rations and housing allowance. The AP story is BS!!!!
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 5:04pm@Scaredfuzz,
“That’s why the defense budget must be re-approved every year. By setting that precedence it is understood that the military does not have a minimum standing strength or that it isn’t immune to being downsized.”
The money must be appropriated by law every year for use in that year.
The point of limiting the amount of years for appropriating money for standing armies is so that the government doesn’t grow so big as to steal your liberties – including the stealing of your hard earned money.
Government is not a job. No one should be looking at government for a job – or much less a retirement plan. Government is to spend the money for the defense of the citizens’ individual inalienable rights, with those who serve in government being compensated according to law. Anything else is theft.
Report Post »Scaredfuzz
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 10:51pmI don’t see how giving those who serve in the military, while yes a government job, we don’t have the power of bureaucrats or congressmen who make laws, (and actually we give up some of those inalienable rights to allow you to have them) the same thing civilian employees get from their job is theft. Taking care of its employees (reasonably) allows qualified (theoretically) people to work in the government and not be at a disadvantage for their service.
By your reasoning that this isn’t a job but a service, we shouldn’t be able to keep military leaders around for 20-30 years to lead our military, it should be a tour for a couple years and move on to something else.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 21, 2011 at 11:47am@Scaredfuzz,
“I don’t see how giving those who serve in the military, while yes a government job, we don’t have the power of bureaucrats or congressmen who make laws, (and actually we give up some of those inalienable rights to allow you to have them) the same thing civilian employees get from their job is theft.”
The reason it is theft is because government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. If by consent, then it is not by entitlement. All of government belongs to the people for their benefit as they see fit, by law, under our Constitutional Republic (we are not a Democracy). The government does not get to decide for themselves what they are worth.
Also, the government doesn’t “allow” us to have inalienable rights. They’re inalienable.
“Taking care of its employees (reasonably) allows qualified (theoretically) people to work in the government and not be at a disadvantage for their service.”
The government also does not get to decide what amounts to being disadvantaged – if they want to make money, they should get a job (and maybe help remove the impediments to business).
“By your reasoning that this isn’t a job but a service, we shouldn’t be able to keep military leaders around for 20-30 years to lead our military, it should be a tour for a couple years and move on to something else.”
No, by my reasoning, when their service, according to law, is no longer required, they do not get to continue taking from the Trea
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 21, 2011 at 11:58am@Scaredfuzz,
(I got cut off again, so here’s the rest of my post)
“By your reasoning that this isn’t a job but a service, we shouldn’t be able to keep military leaders around for 20-30 years to lead our military, it should be a tour for a couple years and move on to something else.”
No, by my reasoning, when their service, according to law, is no longer required, they do not get to continue taking from the Treasury.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 21, 2011 at 12:03pm@Scaredfuzz,
“By your reasoning that this isn’t a job but a service, we shouldn’t be able to keep military leaders around for 20-30 years to lead our military, it should be a tour for a couple years and move on to something else.”
Also, by my reasoning, there would be very few tours because we would respect the sovereignty of other nations, and not have bases all around the world.
Report Post »Scaredfuzz
Posted on August 21, 2011 at 3:10pmSo you are saying by choosing to forgo the money that could be made in the civilian sector, as well as endure hardships and voluntarily giving up rights, that no one in the civilian sector would ever have to go through. The members of the military should leave, after 20+ years of service protecting your rights, with no retirement, medical or any other types of benefits, and then enter the civilian workforce and have to then build a retirement for themselves, when those on the civilian side already have a 20+ years of some form of retirement built.
And also by your reasoning, about length of service in the military, you would leave us with few military leaders with the experience to understand what it takes to defend the U.S. against foreign enemies. I serve because it is a calling of mine but I believe that being fairly compensated and knowing I can take care of my family isn’t too much to ask for the hours I work and the risks I take. (Note: I held the same beliefs before I joined, so its not a “me, me, me” attitude)
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 22, 2011 at 9:42am@Scaredfuzz,
“So you are saying … [t]he members of the military should leave, after 20+ years of service protecting your rights, with no retirement, medical or any other types of benefits, and then enter the civilian workforce and have to then build a retirement for themselves, when those on the civilian side already have a 20+ years of some form of retirement built.”
If our military is spending 20+ years on bases in other countries, our government is violating our Constitution, so they’re not even supposed to be there.
And standing armies are destructive of liberty, which is why our Founders restricted the amount of time for which money could be appropriated for their support.
It’s not Constitutional that our government tries to silence the military, by the way.
And Contitutionally, we’re all supposed to be armed, so as to be ready to defend our liberties in our states or country against corrupt government or invasion. So really, were we adhering to our Constitution, our society would already be familiar with guns, and would already have developed protocols for open-carry behavior, so the citizens would already be a ready militia.
(Continued on next post)
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 22, 2011 at 9:43am(Continued from prior post)
See here.
Federalist Papers #46
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on August 22, 2011 at 10:47am@Scaredfuzz,
Also, you have to understand that the reason the economy is doing so bad is because of government intervention. If government would get out of the way, there would be plenty of work available.
We have gotten increasingly farther away from Capitalism in the past 100 years, and we desparately need to return to it, as our Founders intended.
See here.
Anti-trust, Anti-truth
http://mises.org/daily/436
And here.
Roubini, Marx, and Keynes
Report Post »http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1022.html
Concerned Green Beret
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:03amWhat is amazing about these jackasses who make these proposals is they would never ever consider doing the work of a soldier. It is “too icky” for them. Having to to make such split second decisions on who lives and dies (one of us or them) while living in a &^%$ hole for 12 months or more away from ones family. Missing holiday after holiday, working round the clock for days, weeks, months at a time, for pay that can’t touch what the private sector makes (when one considers the responsibilities the average soldier has). These &^% hypocrites. When they need someone to do their dirty work they will wave the flag until the work is done. Then they blame the soldiers who did it and take away the small crumbs of reward they get. There is a reason there is a 20 year retirement in the military. When you do a 20 year career in the military it is a long haul (especially if you do combat arms). By the time you reach 20 you are tired. One of the things that keeps you going is the some of the compesations you get after 20. What a bunch of pieces of garbage. Go ahead as screw with the retirement. I guarantee you will destroy the senior leadership in the military, because there will be no insentive to stay. It will be better to take the money after 10 years and move on to another career. If you can get anyone to stay that long. I smell the draft coming!!!!!
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:33amIf anything should be cut, it is the pension of Congress and Senate. Someone going in to Congress for two years and gets a pension and benefits for life? That traitor, Christine McKinney is receiving a pension while she is in the middle east bad-mouthing the U.S. Even members that were forced to retire/resign, because of misconduct receive pensions. I think they are way over-paid as it is. $175,000/yr. for a job where everything is paid for, plus how many vacations do they get a year?
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:49amI head one comment that if they’re going to start paying the military like they do civilians (excluding government employees), then the military should start acting like civilian employees. You can’t call in sick in the military. You have to go to sick call and get a **** proving you’re sick. Wonder if that would fly in the civilian world where they call in sick to go to a park with their kids? Military is salaried, so it doesn’t matter how many hours you put in, you get the same pay. Maybe they should start paying the military an hourly wage, with overtime for anything past 40 hours a week. I don’t believe I ever worked a 40 hour week in the Navy. I remember one time during a battle problem (where we pretended the Russians were attacking) we got hit by a hurricane (Hurricane Emily in Bermuda) and I worked straight through 24 hours because I had to bag sand when my shift was over, then go back on shift.
Report Post »bobcattf5
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:02amYes I agree!!! I smell a draft coming really soon to stop the riots in our own streets! Watch they are afraid of U.S. The people are waking up and had enough of the B.S. out of Washington!!! Rangers Lead The Way!!
Report Post »quicker
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:57amThis is what the libs want ,take it out on the military .They have no respect for the military .As an E-4 with 3yrs in service 74 -77 I don`t believe I made 10000 a yr.My menorey is a little foggy on that as I`ve slept since then.However at any price these men and women are still under paid.God bless our military
Report Post »gapch68
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:45amIt will be amusing to see the expressions on the libs faces as they send their children off to serve in that “evil military” due to a draft that was an unintended consequence of their great liberal policies. My husband just retired with 23 years and my son just joined in April. We are a proud military family but I do think the libs are weakening our forces by continueing to cut their funding (while we build turtle tunnels and fund research on Gay men and their “size” along with many other ridiculous things), using them as their social engineering experiment, and leaking crucial information to the lame stream media that puts our soldiers in harms way all because they have such contempt for the military. I know everyone is going to have to sacrifice to get our country back on a fiscally solvent track but the soldiers should be the LAST group to cut. They sacrifice plenty just doing their job.
Report Post »obstin8
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 1:58pmAgree that the focus on wear and tear of the body is not considered. Put a 75lb ruck on any of these guys, walk them for 20+ miles, have them fight their way out of a bad situation, walk back, refit and do it again. Then let them talk about lowering the retirement perks. Sitting behind a desk and the worse thing they get is a paper cut; talking to us about making “sacrifice” for what we do?! Power and responsibility are different. They have the power over the military, but the responsibility of even an E5 is greater than any congressman or sentator. Put them out on the line for a few months and let their bodies get some beatings. Of course they will never do that. We are no smarter than they are. Heck, John Kerry told us that unless we finish school, we will end up in Iraq. Sorry to say that most of my guys, platoon sergeants, squad leaders, and even the junior enlisted guys had their degree. Don’t care what they say, but if your going to cut the military budget, let us do it internally. Tell us what the mark is, and we will do it. Keep the senators hands out of the way giving special perks to their “friends” who get pay offs from doing business that the senators direct.
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:12pm@obstin8
Agree on the wear and tear. I only did 4 years in a prima dona rate (Ocean Systems technician, analyst), but my husband did 20 and his knees are shot, his feet are shot, all at only 47.
Report Post »RatPackRosey
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:39pmAmen
Report Post »They don’t understand the service members, 20 years in the Army is like 40 years in the civilian sector. There bodies break down from all of the hard work they put in. Come back with PTSD, screwed up back, missing limbs, messed up knees and any other medical problem out there. For some jackas that ets at a desk. As one member said, you miss birthday’s, funerals, weddings, sickness. Your family doesnt get a say so on where they move. Most military members take a pay cut to serve this great nation and defend our flag. They need to be careful with the benefits that they want to take away, it just might come back and bite them in there ass. Remember we invade countries and kill the enemy.
mils
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 1:46pmAnonymous T. Irrelevant.
Report Post »……….I AGREE!!!
Rickfromillinois
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:02amI am a military retiree. Let me start out by stating that I found it very satisfying to be a member of the U.S. Army but that there are many sacrifices that this article does not seem to address. My average “work day” when not deployed was 12-13 hours a day. The pay is not comparable to the private sector. If I was paid by the hour I would have done as well working for a fast food business. I spent several years away from my family. I lived in some places that I would not have if given a choice. My family moved 13 times. Many of my rights as a citizen were forfeited while in the military. Myself and many other people I knew by the time we were getting close to retirement time had many physical problems from our bodies being worn out. I HAD to start a 2nd career because I couldn’t AFFORD to live on my retirement pay. And last but not least, I got shot at and shot back. Although that is what an Army does, it still isn’t allot of fun.
Report Post »Still there is the pride from service, some of the truly great people you work with, and the sanctification from doing an important job.
Christabel
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:19amBless you and your family for your sacrifices.
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 3:33pmYou are absolutely right. In my twenty years I moved 25 times. No one ever thinks of the expense of a PCS move to the service member, but it adds up when you have to replace all the groceries you couldn’t move, new garbage cans, new curtains and on and on. Seems trivial, but it comes out of the pocket of a guy/gal making far less than their civilian counterparts. No body has even mentioned the number of days leave (vacation for you nonmilitary types) many of us lost every year because we couldn’t take them or being called back from leave for one crisis or another like the Cuban missile crisis. Even the most worthless of congressman get their retirement and medical benefits after a single term.
Report Post »CharlesMartel
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:12pmOnce my Squadron Commander told the officers in a staff meeting that we were going on 12 hour shifts to prepare for an IG (Inspector General) inspection. There were some muffled groans in the room, but I just suppressed my smile.
I went back to my office and announced, “I have good news. We get to cut back to 12 hour shifts!”
Report Post »Sirhogin
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:02amLets pay people to not work, subsidize food, housing, transportation, healthcare, clothing, with government programs to keep people down and dependent. Then , lets go after our military, who protect our country. Something seem very wrong here. Our government is corrupt
Report Post »AlansTigg
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:01amhell no it’s not too generous…it’s barely sufficient, these men and women risk their LIVES to keep us safe how dare these idiots consider reducing their compensation
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:00amOf the 26 years I was married to my Navy guy that he was active duty, he was on ships most ot it. After he retired, for fun we did the math, he was gone from us, his famly, for 13 of those years, including duty nights before he went up the ladder to MMCM. He retired in 1990 and lived until 2006, so he drew his pension for 16 years. I get zip as we couldn’t afford the plan of taking one third of his initial pension for my use if he died. By the time we could have put it away, we weren’t eligible. The two things Military that count for me now, are the commissary, and tricare. I don’t live right now where the commissary is available, but without tricare, I would be hurting. I believe he earned every penny he got, and my being his support group at home made it possible for him to stay in that long. Military retirees deserve every penny, it is a tough life filled with a lot of anxiety, as well as pride and devotion. If this country wants volunteers to do this job, we need to be treated differently than civilians, much of when he was in we made nothing like his civilain counterparts-I know , they kept trying to hire him away from the Navy. Don’t want to do the job, civvies? Pay up and shut up.
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 2:20pmI agree. I did 4 and my husband did 20. Tricare is even changing with Obamacare. I‘m losing doctors and things that used to be covered aren’t. I lost my son’s neurologist with no warning; went to refill his meds and they said contact your doctor. He‘s no longer on the list of approved doctor’s. When I had cancer 6 years ago, I only paid a co-pay if I saw the doctor. I just went through cancer treatment again, and I have to pay a co-pay every visit. Now, admittedly, it’s better than private care. I also couldn’t afford to lose the money they were going to take out of his retirement check every month if I decided to have it transfer to me. My husband retired in 2001 and is still here, thank God. I also have epilepsy now, so who would hire me? In Texas, if you have a seizure, you can‘t drive until you’re 6 months seizure free. Luckily I haven’t had one (it’s under control) for 3 years.
Report Post »Just an old soldier
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:00amInteresting how they highlight the fact that 83% get out before they are eligible for a pension and get nothing, if serving your nation is nothing.
Report Post »They propose, in the interest of fairness of course, to give a little something for everyone. Sounds kind of like what caused our current out of control spending crisis.
If a 20 year service resulting in immediate pension benefits was such an amazing deal, why do only 17% of service members take advantage of it?
justasoldier
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:06amI think their numbers are skewed. Army Times puts the figure at 10% who stay for 20.
Report Post »Concerned Green Beret
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:27amMan ole man, that is one of the best points I heard on this subject. I never new those stats you put out, but certainly makes sense just on the get promoted or your out system we have now. Good post!!!
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:54amjustasoldier
Report Post »-That might juts be for the Army, as I know USMC is about that as well, or it was when I was in. The Airforce has much higher rates of retention though.
hud
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:18amVet 66 to 69, back then the avg lifer that I met was marking time to retirement. Pretty much worthless as **** on a boar hog, same as 99% of union thugs.Service is like old man river it keeps rolling along, but a deal is a deal. I don’t object to the real soldiers getting theirs, but I do object to the pampered princes of the officer corp (corpse re little o) getting the hugh payoff they receive.
Report Post »jcknccmret
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:58amAs Always, Whenever our Government(Politicians) feel the need to cut their massive spending habits they immediately turn to the Military to Make their cuts. They won’t dare cut, Food Stamps,EPA,Dept of ED,Dept of Commerce,The NLRB and the rest of the wastefull Government Departments or their own over zealous benefits.
John
Report Post »MasterChief USN Retired
biohazard23
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:58amWHAT?!?!?!!! Someone at the AP is CLEARLY smoking crack. Why don’t we eliminate the bennies for Congress and the POTUS. That would be a good place to start. Just what do these “journalists” think the military deserves for retirement? I’ll bet they would have a collective seizure if someone suggested that their retirement bennies were too generous. They would sputter and moan trying to justify their miserable existence and why they deserve more than the contempt they’ve rightfully earned. Worthless, miserable, little peon stenographers is all they are.
One more thing, why the hell don’t they investigate this laughing stock of an administration with the same tenacity as they do the military and anyone/anything not firmly in bed with the liberal agenda? That, of course, would never happen. Can’t go biting the hand that feeds, eh?
Report Post »Concerned Green Beret
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:30amNo, Their pensions should not be touched they are a “private enterprise”. However, they should be investigated for treason over the years of propaganda they have put out against our people, military, and country.
Report Post »biohazard23
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:36amTrue that. I wasn’t saying that the pensions of employees of a private company should be messed with. I was just (poorly) illustrating my point. They SHOULD be investigated for treason – you are correct about that. They and their fellow journ-o-lists should be held accountable for making Tokyo Rose look like Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop.
Report Post »willnotbackdown
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:57amlet me see a little tramp can get pregnant we pay her medical and support her and the brat and now you want to cut the money to the men who risk thier lives. I do not see that kind of talk for all the bureaucrats, maybe one of the military should stick an m16 up the bureaucrats rear and pull the triger
Report Post »Airb0rne4325
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:34amCan’t touch Medicaid, can’t cut the benifits on that. Can’t tell the mother of 10 with 10 different men, on welfare, food stamps, WIC, housing, Medicaid, crack, booze, weed, and Watsons to cut a damn thing. No! We need to cut the benifits of men and women who went to other countries and put their lives on the line for you to get all that. That’s what we need to cut.
Homeland Security said that white, male VETERANS were as much a danger to this country as a foreign born terrorist. They may begin to have a point if they do this.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:45amAgreed! I am so tired of the welfare babies and mothers while we throw our soldiers bad press and nothing but garbage. How about cutting the fed paper pusher salary and pension and leave our armed service men and women alone!
Report Post »Mil Mom
Posted on August 20, 2011 at 1:08am@Airb0rne4325
Report Post »Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:34am
Can’t touch Medicaid, can’t cut the benifits on that. Can’t tell the mother of 10 with 10 different men, on welfare, food stamps, WIC, housing, Medicaid, crack, booze, weed, and Watsons to cut a damn thing. No! We need to cut the benifits of men and women who went to other countries and put their lives on the line for you to get all that. That’s what we need to cut
***
At one time I did a stint as an Ofc Assistant Trainee, at a local welfare office. I developed a close friendship with a retired airforceman’s wife who was their accountant. Her daughter was current airforce pilot and wife of pilot during War On Terror, so she was very sober person.
One day as I walked past her door, she was laughing hysterically. She said someone just reported child abuse/welfare fraud, Said mother of ? who “walked around the block” every time the latest child was old enough she’d have to go work, just told her 12 yr old, she needed to “walk around the block,” and have a baby for Mom, since she’d done it tooo many times and “HERS WAS BROKEN!!” My friend reported her, but said the neighbor who called her was normally a VERY QUIET person never saying anything bad about anyone, but her tone had been hillarious!
I_will_say_this_one_more_time
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:57amThe Military asks: Does the AP print too many stupid stories. I tend to say YES! DIP WADS.
Report Post »Derek01
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:56amElected officials are the ones who should get NO pension or lifetime healthcare for what is basically a temporary contract position. They are well paid and that’s enough. The system was set up so citizens would serve the country, then go home. Self serving politicians have manipulated the system to their favor in both lifetime benefits and job security
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:00amAgreed,Congress should not only have all pension and benefits removed it should also have a term limit. If a Congressman want toke part of his or her salary and put it into a 401k that’s fine. As a 401k is transferable to thier next employment opportunity.
Report Post »CharlesMartel
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:20pmThe Founding Fathers never envisioned that Congressmen would have pensions.
Report Post »TXWildfire
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:54amSeriously! Why the hell are they targeting our military penisons and not congress’!!! This is not the American way. We take care of our soldiers, because they risk their LIFE for ours. While the only life-threatening injury congress memebers have are paper-cuts!
Report Post »starman70
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:23amThe very FIRST thing that should be scrapped is the entire Congressional “Retirement” plan. This only amounts to a self imposed giveaway benefitting the FAT CATS who are sitting around in their fancy air conditioned congressional offices. These Washington elitests have voted THEMSELVES, without the consent of the voters or taxpayers a lifetime retirement and healthcare package beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.
All the while, our soldiers are stationed in every imagineable climate from sub-zero to over 100% every day. Those in combat areas face IEDs, enemy fire, civilians with bombs strapped to their bodies and a host of other threats. I could see some of the lap of luxury, limousine liberals sitting around in the halls of Congress being exposed to this environment every day.
The idiots at the Associated Press are in bed with these Congressional fat cats, so what else could you expect from the far left ******** who run that newsless organization. It is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that the AP hasn’t got the guts or cojones to call for reform of the Congressional members perks and luxury retirement plan first.
Report Post »jkendal
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:52amWRONG QUESTION, asspress!!! Here’s the correct one:
Are Federal Government Pensions Too ‘Generous’? Especially the Politicians’??
Report Post »LARR
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:51amI’m retired Navy….a couple of points…yes, it is half of your “salary” but the salary part is base pay only. It does not include any income which the military considers “allowances” Allowances make up a good bit of the total package (housing, food, clothing, allowances for high cost areas, etc)
Second….military life is a gamble…my life, any day or night, against a pension if I make it for 20 years. Take away the pension, and you might not find as many willing to make the bet…
Larr
Report Post »CTRC USN – Ret
biohazard23
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:08amThis Navy brat thanks you for your service. My daddy was USN RET. He retired as a chief, spent most of his 30 years in the Pacific. He’s at Arlington now, God bless his soul.
Report Post »SoldierEconomist
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:42amI’m in absolute agreement with you. My wife and I just had this conversation about whether or not I would stay. It all came down to risk vs. reward. It’s really hard to accept the same level of risk for lesser reward. I love my Soldiers, they are the best people I’ve ever met, and it’s an honor to serve with them. But I won’t blame them for opting to get out if this change comes because I will be making the same considerations.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:50amClearly, we need to cut such ABSURD wastes of money like military pensions so we can better fund social spending and public sector union benefits. Only my sarcasm saves me from pulling out my remaining hair.
Report Post »Marcia
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:48amActually, the retirement system was changed in 1986 to 40% of BASE pay, not total pay.
Report Post »Tom Merrill
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:35amAnd in 2001 the Redux Plan was repealed by congress. It is now 50% of the average top three years. In real dollars, after losing housing allowance, basic allowance for subsistance, and special pays (flight pay, jump pay, HALO pay, dive pay, or other pro-pays) the retirement is closer to 30% of what a soldier was making on active duty.
Report Post »Marcia
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:46amLet’s set the record straight! You DO NOT get half of your pay when retiring. You get 1/2 of the averge of the highest 36 months (called “high 3”) of your BASE pay – NOT total pay. BASE pay is roughly 1/2 of your total pay and benefits for most servicemen and women. After 20 years of deployments, being on call 24/7, family separations, missed birthdays, anniversaries and T ball it is a small price for the federal government to pay for loyal service.
Report Post »NOTAMUSHROOM
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:46amLet the Congress cut their pensions out COMPLETELY before we cut the military pension. Those guys aren’t even paid well to begin with. Remember what that idiot, John Kerry, said about them?
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:55amI agree completely. Let Congress pay their own retirement. Did they ever sacrifice their life or put themself in danger. The military should be paid more and be taken better care of than Congress or any government employee.
Report Post »the wireworker
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 9:19amlets take it from the politicians and give it to our military, that seems to be the policies they shove down our throats, if they believe it to be the “best way” then they can lead on it and be an example.
Report Post »burr99
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:45amWell, lets see. We have a voulunteer military. So, just what is the incentive in getting your ass shot off? It’s just fine to have 49% of the civilian population receiving money for doing NOTHING. But now we have to punish the people who put thier lives on the line for our freedom?! Agonizing!
Report Post »ares338
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:43amHow about public sector employees in Mexifornia retiring at 85 and 90% of their base pay. I don’t think soldiers are breaking us.
Report Post »historyguy48
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:50amThey sure are! Just like our fearless congressmen these guys get to retire on full pay, $173,000 per year, full medical, an additional $40,000 year and with big companies offering them millions of dollars to help them with congress.
Report Post »Well, I will admit, that once the servicemen reach age 65 (unlike congressmen) they receive just a little less than our “fearless” political leaders in the “trenches” in Washingon. Something like 15% of what our elites have allowed themselves, after a huge two (2) years of service sitting in fancy restaurants in Washington.
Isn’t socialism wonderful?
mfspradley79
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 10:03amIt’s NOT true that congressman get 100% pay at retirement. Their pension is based on “high 3” salary (the average annual salary paid in the 3 years with the highest salaries) times the number of years of service times 1.7% (0.017). Also, you can not draw pension unless you have greater than 20 years of service and/or are 62 y/o with a minimum of 5 years of service. Based on the average congressional salary of $174,000 a congressman (62 or older) with 12 years of elected service would draw $35,496 pension/year till death. On a side note, congressman pay a measly 1.3% into the pension plan and receive more retirement benefits in one year than they paid into the system over 12 years ($174,000 x 12 years x 1.3% = $27,144).
Report Post »AJAYW
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:42amNo they are not- Heck look at what they are paid- Cut Obama’s and all of congress pay and benifits
Report Post »PeachyinGA
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:41amNO! The military deserve every meager retirement penny they earn. (Click over the the Verizon story by comparison.)
Report Post »HKS
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:40amThis question should be addressing politicians, Military is just working poor with a pittance for retirement. Politicians on the other hand are the fat cats and I thought they hated fat cats.
Report Post »Simonne
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 11:56amI don’t resent any money that our military men & women get because for what they do for us & our country, they deserve every cent. Our politicians are a different story, they deserve lot less so let’s take that money from them & give it to our military as another poster already mentioned.
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on August 19, 2011 at 8:39amIs the AP salary schedule too generous?? Is the AP retirement package too generous.??Just what has the AP done to protect our country?? They seem to always be on the other side of doing what’s right. Funny about that
Report Post »