Start Somewhere Else

Rate this post

Are military pensions too ‘generous’?

 WASHINGTON (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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 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.
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,” retired Gen. Gordon 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.”
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.”
You want effectiveness and efficiency? There are plenty other places where they can start to reduce federal spending:

  • National Endowment for the Arts (Can’t sell your art privately?)
  • National Wild Horse and Burro Program (Huh?)
  • Dept. of Education
  • Dept of Energy
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • Dept. of Transportation
  • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • FEMA (a corrupt organization if there ever was one–leave it to charities)
  • FDIC (a sham program with only a fraction of funds needed to save banks)
  • Freddy Mac &
  • Fannie Mae (helped cause present economic conditions)
  • Etc., etc., etc…

Until Congress addresses these ridiculous money pits, leave military pensions alone! Unlike the moochers living off welfare, food stamps, etc., a military pension is not an entitlement.  It was earned. 
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “Start Somewhere Else

  1. The military is not a corporate job with funny clothes– anyone who tries to work it like that will cause nothing but trouble. I don’t hear ’em trying it with federal law enforcement, by the way.

     
  2. This is absurd! It will certainly make the job much less desirable. And then what?

     
    • “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.”
      –George Washington

       
  3. this could be one of the strongest arguments against standing armies and perpetual war as a policy…

     
  4. From the article: “higher than that of average civilians with the same education.”…oh really? So, how many of those civilian jobs have a high probability that they will be trading bullets with an enemy? And as for that education level, do they count the months spent learning tactics and weapons systems to such a high degree that the individual military member is counted on to operate and maintain those systems in order to defeat the enemy and preserve the lives of others?
    The people on that board need to go through all the same rigors of your average recruit, then on to schools, and from there on into the heat of battle….after a year of that, then they can make some suggestions … maybe…if they survive.

     
    • Yup, I wonder how much civilian infantrymen and nuclear submarine crewmen make by comparison so they can justify messing w/ the retirement by their logic… aw, there aren’t any? Gee, I wonder why.

       
  5. Being one of the few who volunteered to serve in the United States Navy (for 22 years) in both peace time and war, I stick to my original statement regarding my military pension which was posted here over a year ago. This statement was also sent to all my representative congress critters.
    In the name of reducing the national debt, will gladly fore go all future military pension payments the moment Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) releases to the public for inspection and verification all personal records from birth through the 2008 presidential election and any official documentation that qualifies him as a natural born Citizen of the United States as required by Article II section 1 of the US Constitution.

     
  6. A military pension is not an entitlement, it was earned by sacrifice and in battle. What do the crimmigrants and welfare queens have to say for their efforts?

     
  7. I agree DCG. Cut every one of those useless groups. Cut Congress wages first,they are totally overpaid,their benefits should end when they are done or voted out or shamefully resigned. Leave our Military alone.

     
  8. Funny how they float a 401(k)-style plan right now with the market tanking… I’ll bet the tantalizing prospect to telling people “this is YOUR responsibility” and pre-washing their hands of it when the stock market destroys the 401(k)’s value was what got them exicted.
    “8 Ways the Market Collapse Will Cripple Your Finances,” by Douglas A. McIntyre, 24/7 Wall Street via Yahoo!, 19 AUG 11
    http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/113355/ways-market-collapse-cripple-your-finances
    “Stock market collapses hurt employee benefits in several ways. Initially, when the market is soft, companies tend to pull back on retirement benefits, eliminating pensions and matching 401(k)s.”
    “Nothing kills retirement like a cratering 401(k) — when the value of savings meant to fund life after people stop working plummets. The difference between a $1 million portfolio and a $500,000 portfolio can be the difference between retiring at 65 or working until 70 — as large numbers of people found out when the market collapsed in 2009.”

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *