This is quite radical, and I suspect the shit is about to hit the fan:
A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system that has defined military careers for generations.
In a massive change that could affect today’s troops, the plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.
All troops would receive the yearly retirement contributions, regardless of whether they stay for 20 years. Those contributions might amount to about 16.5 percent of a member’s annual pay and would be deposited into a mandatory version of the Thrift Savings Plan, the military’s existing 401(k)-style account that now does not include government matching contributions.
I would be absolutely shocked if this goes anywhere, and it would not surprise me if someone isn’t making a pledge already for the GOP presidential candidates. They sure do want everything in 401k’s these days, though, don’t they. That way our Galtian overlords can rape and pillage your retirement with deregulation and silly stunts like trashing the country’s credit rating through default. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would have happened if all the military retirees had their pensions wiped out in the 2008 crash instead of receiving their current benefits? Yeehaw.
Jude
You seem to forget that veterans and retirees are only useful as props; when their actual concerns come up, they’re quickly dismissed and told to suck it up.
From the Bonus Army to Agent Orange to Gulf War Syndrome to general VA funding, the song remains the same through the years.
jl
The change from sudden benefits eligibility seems good. The 401k more than cancels that, since those are so easy to turn into rip offs.
One corporate rip off is to retain power to choose investment portfolio for 401k funds, and surprise, the portfolio is just the company’s stock.
So, I would guess, the analog of that style 401k rip off would be, Treasury securities?
Everything is a plot.
So, how were the raccoons? Grill them or fry? Pics?
Edit: forgot, maybe you had them a la ‘uckabee. So are they good popped?
Odie Hugh Manatee
This fits in with privatizing everything the government does, turning it all over to corporations. Teh guvernment sux and can’t do anything right, only big business is capable of delivering.
I’d sure be interested in knowing the political leanings of those on the board at the Pentagon who decided that this was a good idea.
ruemara
This is both a WTF and a WhyTF thing. I don’t know, this whole government gives me a migraine. Well, honestly, it just makes me want a beer and some sushi.
beltane
A “corporate style benefits system”. Another way of saying “No retirement for you, foul peasant.”
Gin & Tonic
I am fortunate in having both a defined benefit pension plan and a 401(k), which I have been in for over 20 years. Since I have the former, the latter, with its 75% employer matching contributions is more or less free money. If you pick the most conservative fund allocation options, slow and steady works well.
Violet
Maybe those that are currently in love with our Galtian overlords would have a different opinion about said overlords if this had happened.
Mandonna (formerly trollenschlongen)
testing…
Rome Again
I’m sure my oldest right-wing brother who is retired from the military after 30+ years of service would be happy to give up his government service check to help the country. No?
Another right-wing brother of mine (who only spent a few drafted years in Vietnam and trafficking marijuana from Cambodia) would happily give up his housing benefit and pay the amount of an actual down payment on his house too, perhaps? After all, they both simply DETEST soshulism!
Han's Big Snark Solo
I’m sure the military will give their young, 18 year old recruits, all the training they need to successfully manage their retirement accounts.
I. Am. Funny.
Yevgraf
I may be of a mind to think this is a good idea, as it might eliminate the “careerism for the benefit of sweet pay and pension” mindset that seems prevalent among some demographics of the Teatard Nation.
In short, what do you do with the guy who’s done a sweet 20 outside of any combat zone (doing little but work in QM depots) and who intends to vote teatard from here on out? Do you offer him profuse thanks for his “service” and promise him bennies for life, or do you make him scratch like the rest of us?
General Stuck
When I was in as a draftee circa 1973, the Army, and overall military began a steep downsizing, and there were a bunch of NCO’s especially, that had 17, 18 even 19 years in that got Rifed (reduction if force) and screwed out of their 20 year pension. And I suspect similar downsizings since have created the same fucking those guys got. So I wonder if something like this wouldn’t be some better received that at first blush. Depends on the details, like most things, I suspect.
Punchy
I suspect nothing bad will happen. Nothing at all.
Also, give them vouchers for medical care instead of fixing their domes and stems for the rest of their life. I’m sure Blue Cross would love to cheaply insure a man with PTSD, 3 anti-depressants, and 2 prosthetics.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
Rome Again
If he was drafted he didn’t spend and “few ” years in the Nam unless the dumb-ass re-upped.
Han's Big Snark Solo
@Violet:
Yeah, right. History shows us that when the market crashes and their investments turn to mud the true believers will do what they always do: Blame Democrats who fought against the changes that screwed them.
John Arbuthnot Fisher
I’m lucky enough to have both a well-funded defined benefit pension plan as well as a generous match for my 401(k). I’m definitely skeptical of any move away from a defined benefit plan, which provide terrific income and security vs. a standalone 401(k)…but on the other hand, I feel the structure of military retirements needs to be balanced more towards the long-term needs of enlisted men rather than officers (on the face of it, they seem to benefit most from the current structure). I see no reason not to have both plans balanced with a more scaled peak (why fully vest at only 20 years vs. 25 or 30?).
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
General Stuck
Damn straight, dumb-ass lifers got fucked again.
kdaug
Shared sacrifice, no? Everybody’s gotta be all-in on Wall Street?
Overlords, indeed. We’ve seen this movie before. It doesn’t end well.
Violet
@Han’s Big Snark Solo:
But when the market crashed in 2008, Democrats got elected and polls show that people still blame Bush for the economic problems.
Linkmeister
On a similar note, Coburn’s $9 trillion deficit reduction plan radically reduces Tricare benefits and eliminates commissary/exchange subsidies.
TOP123
Well, at this point shouldn’t they just privatize the military? What’s with all this Big Government defending our nation, anyway?
DZ
Apparently, most of you didn’t read the article. The proposed plan would not affect current retirees so they couldn’t have lost their benefits. Complain all you want but do on the basis of the facts not BS.
Yevgraf
Hell, between vouchers for health care, sticking their retirements in 401K plans and arbitrary RIFs, I’d say that the misery of their financial lives would only be outdone by the misery of serving in an ever increasing number of wars entered into by chickenhawk wingnuts in order to prove how much they respect and love Our Military….
jrg
I’d be a lot more sympathetic to the loss of defined benefit military pensions if I did not know a number of pensioners (technologists and surgeons) who are making a killing in the private sector after “retirement”.
Face
John, how does this affect you? Does it?
Edit: apparently it does not
Martin
Slightly OT:
Prime time national address? Don’t expect Friday Obama to show up, but I don’t think he’d be doing this unless he had something meaningful to say. Either it’s going to be a plan, or all the balls are about to get dumped on Boehner’s side of the court – especially after he failed to show up with anything yesterday, after promising to do so.
Yevgraf
The name of it is Rollerball, and it starred James Caan…
Han's Big Snark Solo
@Violet: And look how long it took the GOP to try to blame everything on Obama. I’m not saying the populace is dumb enough to believe them, but the press sure is.
They’ll just keep repeating the same lie over and over again until people who know better are so tired of pushing back with reality that they throw their hands in the air and walk away.
econlibVA
Overall, this is a great idea. Most people who join the military leave before six years of service, and under this plan those people would get retirement benefits that they currently do not get. Also, the current plan that gives 20-year benefits leads to lots of double dipping, as people retire around age 40, work another 20 years as a military contractor or civilian and get another pension as well.
Current pensions are expensive for the government and useless for most that serve. Moving to the plan above would be a huge move in the right direction.
Jasper
When everyone has their retirement tied to Wall Street, our interests are aligned with them!!!
Not really, but that’s the spin. The “tell” is you can guarantee the end result for the employer is lower costs for retirement benefits. And the fact is a big pension fund can invest the money cheaper and more effectively using highly trained, highly compensated advisers able to demand and get low costs for their transactions than millions of ignorant investors who get fleeced on exorbitant fees in millions of low balance accounts.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
Face
If he didn’t do 20+ it don’t mean shit.
The Moar You Know
This needs to happen. The Masters of the Universe will think twice about trashing everyone’s retirement savings if doing so will get a couple of hundred thousand people who have been trained to kill coming after them.
jl
@21 DZ Where in the post does Cole talk about the proposed change being applied to existing contracts? How does the well known fact that it is very very difficult to change pre existing contracts for retirement benefits change the fact that aspects of the plan are sketchy (IMO, the 401k part)?
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
econlibVA
Fuckin A right. I did three years, one in Korea and one in the Nam. I got the GI Bill education bennies but that’s it. I’m “means tested” so I get zip as far as medical.
Cliff in NH
Wall St.:
Feeeees… Gives us your Feeees…
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
The Moar You Know
as if
Rome Again
@Raven (formerly stuckinred):
Quite honestly, I was too young to remember the actual amount of time of his service. I know he was gone for quite a while. I was about five or six when he left and when he came back, my youngest brother (who was about 12 or 13 at his departure) was getting married. I am not aware of him re-upping. He may have and I didn’t know. I do know that he came back in about 1974 and brought a bunch of pot back with him which he served up at my brothers bachelor party. He always bitched about the draft (after returning), and prior to his serving, my parents had to go to Toronto at one point to try to coax him back in time to attend his service appointment.
cleek
@Martin:
BULLY PULPIT!
Catsy
@jrg:
Infantry, not so much.
Really, this is just the Ryan Medicare plan and Bush’s SS privatization targeted at the military instead of seniors. Don’t touch existing retirees in order to slip it in under the radar, eliminate guaranteed benefits going forward, replace them with a privatized scheme that delivers vastly inferior benefits, and call it an upgrade.
The wonder is that any elected Republican actually thought this was a good idea on any level. They’ve pissed off kids, seniors, gays, women, minorities… so they don’t want the military to feel left out?
Who is driving this clown car?
salacious crumb
arent most veterans hard core supporters of the Republican Party/Tea Party. maybe they really do want the corporatization of their benefits.
Martin
I think that’s reasonable. I think it’s even more reasonable to vest based on some very coarse manner of service (if that’s not already there, or even possible to do). I’d much rather see guys that have spent their time ducking bullets vest earlier than guys that have been walking the halls of the Pentagon for 20 years.
So, vest at 30 years (would be early 50s for most) and deduct time spent in active combat along some modifier, that kind of thing. The military has 9 million kinds of formulas for shit, so I’m sure they can come up with something.
DZ
@JL #32:
Cole didn’t say it, but quite a few commenters did which is what I said. The article is what Cole linked, not what he said.
Cliff in NH
@jrg:
Here is the job, here is the risk, here are the benefits.
Oh, but don’t count on those benefits, this is a ‘Democracy’, that means we vote to screw you later.
Enjoy getting shot at now, and don’t you dare be successful after you leave service, you will make idiots unsympathetic about your pay package.
liberal
I don’t understand all this protest—AFAICT most civilian employees are on the Thrift Savings Plan, or mostly on it (except for people who started working before 1986).
It’s a defined-contribution plan, and you can bitch about that if you want, but the fact is that it probably has very low expense ratios.
Not exactly sure about a military version, but…
jl
@25 martin: My understanding is that Boehner is the only leader who has been steadfastly insisting that bipartisan House plan is not an option.
If that is true, why have I never hears about this asymmetry in The Balance?
If only Yoda were a corporate network respected very serious paid news clown: “Young Luke, I sense an asymmetry in The Balance. Great turmoil, there will be.”
DZ
@JL:
I reread Cole’s post, and he did say it.
“Can you imagine the shitstorm that would have happened if all the military retirees had their pensions wiped out in the 2008 crash instead of receiving their current benefits?”
Warren Terra
Someone is seriously proposing that we do away with the idea of career military “doing their twenty”? After it’s become such a part of American life? Somehow, I just don’t see it.
Although, as Stuck points out, the current system does tend to generate some number of people who get turfed out a bit short of twenty, and are pretty peeved about it – and this is of course a money-saving opportunity the brass always have. And it’s not impossible to imagine them cynically and systematically engaging in such a policy. Think for example of those 364-day in-country tours they arranged for National Guard members in Iraq, practically with an emergency evacuation at the end if necessary, because of the increased pay and benefits due any Guard member spending a full year in theater.
jl
@41 DZ: Not that I can see in the comments previous to yours.
Others: I have to go, we seem to have one trollish commenter, and one naive liberal here. Please help them out.
paul Thomas
Well, they have wiped out government retirements before and no body batted an eye.
http://www.goiam.org/index.php/imail/latest/7278-support-fairness-for-flight-service-personnel-
Martin
It’s the standard-bearer for ‘low expense ratio’. Thrift Savings Plan is basically your own private Social Security Trust Fund.
BTW, if anyone in the military doesn’t get their check next week – go kick on Bohner’s door, because Treasury might default on your retirement. But it’s okay, because the GOP is all about the troops.
karen marie
DZ: But your claim was that Cole said “current military retirees.” As you can see from the quote you posted, that’s not what he said.
Military personnel are much like teachers in that they make very little during their term of service in exchange for a reasonable, guaranteed retirement. Those who retire after 20 years and take up another line of work while collecting their military pension are not “double dipping.” They are receiving the benefit they agreed to take in lieu of higher pay during service.
liberal
jl
Me? What’s naive about pointing out that very few people even in the federal government get a defined benefit pension these days? What do you actually know about TSP?
Martin
@jl:
Yeah, the Senate mysteriously disappeared back in mid-January.
Cassidy
You’d be surprised at how wrong you are on this one.
Yevgraf
Thirty years ago, I’d have agreed. Now, not so much. Between pay and housing allowances, E5 and up make very liveable amounts of soshulist pay and get great soshulist benefit packages.
bottyguy
2% investment fees on 1.4M military personnel really adds up, I’m pretty sure Wall Street deserves that for all they’ve done for us. The government shouldn’t be competing when private industry can do it SOOO MUCH more efficiently.
Do troops have collective bargaining rights we can take away? #fuckyouwashington
horatius
If the morons running the Donkey party have any clue, they’ll make a big show and tell about supporting our troops with this issue all the way to 2012.
liberal
bottyguy wrote,
Where are you getting that? TSP for civilians has extremely low expense ratios.
liberal
I could be mistaken but the TSP website makes it seem like the current expense ratio is something like 0.025%, which makes even Vanguard look profligate.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
Rome Again
Yea, the term of service for draftee’s was 2 years. He probably filled his stereo speakers and sent a shit load home in his hold baggage. You might enjoy “On the Rainy River” in Tim O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried.” He talks about his decision to go to Vietnam or Canada.
Cassidy
We also don’t automatically get the next pension in our careers. As a contract employee, we’re employed by a private entity and contracted to work a gov’t job. So that’s not really a GS civilian. If we go GS, our time goes to retirement, but not pension. So, as I’m coming off duty after 13 years of active and I go into a GS position, I’s probably be able to go straight into a GS-7/9 with maybe some steps. And yes, I can do it for 12 more years and retire. But I’d have to buy those 13 years of pension from the gov’t to get a full 25 year retirement.
So, yes a man/woman retires after 20 years of active duty and that pension (50% of last three years base pay) is enough to make the house payment, maybe the car, but then we still have to start a whole new career. It isn’t easy street.
Yeah, you’re full of shit.
burnspbesq
Just curious as to how many of y’all have thought through what happens when a government-sponsored defined benefit plan earns less on its investments than the actuaries expected.
trollhattan
In which George Will–he of the bowtie and no dungarees nevah–compares Obama to Huey Long. Garnished with his copyrighted, “Well.”
Also, too, this doozy.
Now doesn’t that sound honorable?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-stands-its-ground/2011/07/25/gIQAmvNsYI_story.html?hpid=z2
nellcote
Tie military retirement age to SS. Let them start collecting retirement bennies at 65 or 67. Or bring SS retirement age down to 50.
liberal
burnsie wrote,
Exactly.
The one negative of defined-contribution plans is that you allow people enough rope to hang themselves through poor choices. OTOH, some people would argue that people should have the freedom to invest their retirement funds.
But that aside, if TSP has very low expense ratios, then it’s hard to see how it’s a much worse deal than a defined-benefit plan, unless the latter gets a much better return than would be provided by economic growth, which ISTM means you’re getting a better deal than you reasonably should.
sphouch
I linked to this article myself, and the first comment is literally “You mean the same way Clinton cut retirement from 60% to 40% for 20 years of service?”
Because screwing with the military now is ok since Clinton did it, too.
Rome Again
@Raven (formerly stuckinred):
I’ll make note of it and check it out. Thanks!
Omnes Omnibus
@ sphouch
It wasn’t done by Clinton. 40% at 20 years was the standard when I went into the army in 1987.
karen marie
trollhattan: George Will seems to be coming completely unhinged.
Kilkee
George Will, who used to employ an assistant to dig up quotes from the great philosophers and writers to support his tedious drivel (at least) until called on it, so as to appear erudite, should be studiously ignored until he ceases to exist.
Pococurante
On the other hand a 401k can’t be defunded.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Pococurante:
Weird because mine got defunded by about 25% a couple years back.
burnspbesq
@Fuckhead:
Depending on what you meanly “defunded,” you and pococurante could both be right. Employer contributions to a 401(k) are irrevocable; under no circumstances can any money ever go back to the employer, which is different than a defined benefit plan. On the other hand, investment gains and losses inure to the benefit (or detriment) of the plan participant, and the employer has no obligation to make the participants whole. If you had a loss when the markets cratered in 2008′ it’s your loss, although you’ve probably made most or all of it back since then.
Just Some Fuckhead
I bet you could find a dork site to hang out on if you really tried, Burns. Yer wasting away here.
Mike in NC
George Will, serene Randian millionaire. Perchance has he split a $350 bottle of vino with Paul Ryan lately?
Older
The govt did this to postal employees about 15 or 20 years ago. On the whole we were not thrilled. I was lucky enough to have started long enough ago to be firmly in the CSRS group. This meant that I could have a thrift savings plan, but the govt wouldn’t match it, because they were already on the hook for a pension. I’m probably one of the youngest to have an actual pension.
But I do know something about the TSP works. In addition to the possible market reverses while one is working, there’s the problem that the management process is quite blunt; only one adjustment is allowed per calendar quarter. And the fact that once you retire (and it may not be when you want to retire — there was no mandatory retirement age for my job, but I had to retire because of a disability) you have a limited time to convert the TSP to whatever — an annuity, a different investment, as you prefer. And heaven help you if it’s during one of those periodic “recessions” we’ve been having lately. The yield per dollar paid in from my TSP is minuscule compared to my actual pension, due largely to the last-mentioned situation.
Dr. Squid
Bend over, here it comes again.
joeshabadoo
This is a terrible idea.
The last thing we want is the military, even the regular grunts, getting it into their head that if they do something it will cost or lose them money.
This could incentivise wars (get those stocks up!) or even a possible coup if people believe it is going to destroy their retirement.
The military should be as seperate as possible from corporate money and control. This would go beyond our huge privatized army and actually give corporations power over our real soldiers.
furioso ateo
USMC, honorably discharged, one tour in Afghanistan. Two words:
Fuck. This.
Seth Owen
It amazes me that people who didn’t spend any part of their lives in a freezing wet foxhole or under a searing Iraqi sun while wearing several score pounds of equipment think it’s no big deal to make people wait until they’ve put in 25 or 30 years instead of 20 for retirement. Look, being a troop is tough on the body — especially being an enlisted troop. War is a young man’s game and our entire military personnel system is designed to keep people moving up through the ranks at an appropriate pace so that you don’t have the advancement of promising young soldiers stalled by older guys hanging around past their prime.
The current system seems to work just fine, thank you and trying to save a little money is not a sufficient reason to screw with it.
What’s especially galling about this proposal is that it blithely breaks a promise. It would be bad enough if this only applied to recruits, but to apply it in any way to currently serving soldiers is, bluntly, reneging on their enlistment promise. Part of every recruiter’s pitch is “and if you stay for 20 you can retire.”
Make no mistake, if they can break THIS promise then your Social Security is toast.
Paul in KY
My military brothers & sisters (those who want a career) will not be happy about this.
Stumped
@DZ:
DZ-yes it will. The “new” proposal, not the one from a couple of months ago, states the plan will affect current troops, no “grandfathering.” It’s BS. I stayed past 10 and embraced the suck based on the fact I would be “ok” when I retired at 20. I’ve planned my future based on this. I guess I shouldn’t have.
Paul
@Raven (formerly stuckinred):
“The Things They Carried.” Is actually a work of fiction Tim O’Brien made himself a character in his book. which is actually about a writer talking about writing.
It’s a good book, but again fiction. He said him self he only remembers about two weeks worth of stuff from him time in Vietnam. Frankly I am against making these changes to military pensions. after twenty years in the armed forces you earned that retirement package. I got out of the corps at 4 years and i am ok with that. my choice was based on the fact that. I have seen too many Marines finish there 20 years and look so worn out. I’ve seen too many marines who are retiring in there 40’s who look like that are in there 80’s. They earned that pension by breaking their bodies for an ungrateful nation.
SGT BALTZ
outstanding…..now what the fuck am I going to do… They are cutting troops and fucking peoples retirement…i wish i had my 20 now so i could gtfo and go back to small town arkansas….i am so confused and angry about this…i know what would have been my retiremnt wouldnt have been much…but it is guarenteed and my family is taken care of as far as healthcare goes… now they want me to do 20 and then what until i am 65
Been there done that
It is always easier for those that have not served to be critical of the military retirement system. Is it a good deal? Yes it is, but before you say retirees should have to scratch like everyone else, I suggest you lace a pair up and walk a mile in my shoes. There have always been patriotic Americans willing to defend the country despite what they are being paid. Valley Forge and post WWI come to mind. And there have always been and always will be those who complain while sitting at home on a comfortable couch yelling at the TV. I didn’t make the laws, I only followed them. If you want to change what the military benefits are then I suggest signing up and getting a first hand look at military life before running your mouth.
Dan
1. The benefits should be viewed as part of the military compensation. Housing, subsistence pay and locality pay as well as potential retirement benefits. It doesn’t matter how the retirement is defined.
This plan is a win-win. Instead of keeping guys who want out but know they need 20 years. Those guys can leave when their motivation is sapped with their frogging money. The government defines their liabilities up front. Yes they are shifting downstream risks to the member, but they do it by paying up front–not really a bad deal, just a different deal and one that will be a winner on both sides.
Second, Double dipping is a stupid misnomer used by the government to get itself out of paying what it owes people–working people. Now certainly the public should vote for civil service and military pay scales in line with the needs of the nation. But welching on your contracts to the workers after the fact is just welching. They call it double dipping to point a finger of dishonor at the person who took the job they offered and expects the pay they were promised.
There already is staged “vesting” it begins at 20 years and ends whenever you leave you get 2.5% more of your base pay for each year you stay after 20 (at 30 years you get 75%).
Shifting the retirement pay in time (not paying till people reach 65) is fine for new people. But you’ll have to pay them more to get them into the door. Further it won’t resolve the problems of people who would love to get out at 18 years, but can’t afford to leave 2 years early.
Finally, people are right guys in combat should get more pay. The new system would just add retirement pay into their account while they served in combat or hardship billets. This is absolutely great as it would pay more to people who actually do the dangerous work. This is much needed improvement. The guys on the committee are honest, hard working and looking to eliminate bad incentives and waste.
The only problem brought up with any legitimacy is that it would indeed put risk in the hands of the servicemen. They would hold responsibility for their own money. It depends on luck and how clever they are how that works out. Some would surely lose some money and some would just as surely make a killing off their thrift. Most would track general returns on retirement plans available now in the THRIFT which over the years have been quite good (around 5-6% averaged over 15 years). No guarantee of future returns though–just like their is no guarantee of future tax revenues to fund the defined benefit plan that currently exists. They are just taking the ponzi scheme away.
Dan
I don’t know yet how they’ll handle health care benefits or current service members. They’ve already looked to welch on health care benefits (they are more expensive than the govt thought) and are continuing to pursue this line of approach. So that is nothing new. Again, not a problem to change the offer for new recruits as they’ll weigh their options. To change it on those who are already in the service is kind of a screw job as they don’t get to renegotiate or reconsider their decision to join and many can’t just leave on a whim. It’s the equivalent of just getting tired of the weather in Afghanistan and deciding you’re coming home before the end of your tour. So agree that if they don’t offer some scaled or tiered system that preserves the expectation of people who are currently in service based on their length of service (how close they are to 20 years) that could be a bit of a welch. But anyone new–there is no way to really rip them off–it gets harder to rip them off because you are paying them as they go. And believe me a platoon sergeant taking 100 kids into combat is worth way more than his current pay and deserves all his benefits if he does a good job keeping those kids alive and taking out enemy. If they were your kids you’d not grudge him one bloody cent.
Tim
Support and defend the Constitution or defend my 401 K? I am sure the Pentagon would love to get out from under the burden of dolling out retirement dollars that could be vested to the military industrial complex. No profit in veterans?
Darren
I’m greatly concerned about this. I have 14 years of active service…if this passes before I reach 15 years it would reduce what I expected/planned to get by nearly $400,000. if I make it to 15 years before it passes I still would lose a significant amount of money that I expected. I understand that we need to reduce spending. However, before my second deployment to Iraq at about 10 years in I made the critical desicion to stay in because of the retirement. The desicions I made 4 years ago were based on military retirement benefits. If they are significantly reduced to those who were expecting them is just not fair. I hope their is a lot of thought and military lobbyist are working overtime to support the Service Members.