Military retirement under attack

[TMFan]

Feel free to gnash your teeth at the token "liberal ######tard" and etc. but realize more Republicans supported this measure than Democrats

Wrong again.

In the House vote, 169 Republicans voted aye vs 163 Democrats. In the Senate, it was 9 Republicans and 53 Democrats.

[Homestar]

At least they fund illegal immigrant medical care with this bill.

[Smokin]

Republicans just wanted this to go through quickly and without significant media attention so everyone can keep pointing out how ObamaCare is falling on its face. Had there been another government shutdown in Jan, no one would care that Obama's signature legislation and his legacy is turning out to be a complete debacle.

[Bender]

Dear [Bender]:

Thank you for contacting me regarding changes to the military retirement system included within the recent bipartisan budget agreement. I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

The "Bipartisan Budget Act" (House Joint Resolution 59), which passed the House of Representatives on December 12, 2013 and the Senate on December 18, 2013, sets new spending limits for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015. In order to accommodate these new spending levels, the bill includes a number of changes to federal employee and military retirement benefits, Medicare, and several government user fees.

With regard to military pensions, the bill would temporarily reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to the rate of inflation minus one percent. This change would only apply to working-age retirees under the age of 62, many of whom have pursued second careers after their military service. Retirees older than 62 would be unaffected.

It is important to note that the bill also includes a provision that would readjust these working-age retirees' pensions once they turn 62 as if the annual COLAs had not been reduced. Therefore, under this "catch-up" provision, while working-age retirees will see their annual pension annuity temporarily grow less than the rate of inflation, once they turn 62, their pension annuity will immediately and dramatically increase to the level it would have been under the traditional COLA indexed to inflation.

I appreciate your concerns regarding the COLA reductions that working-age retirees will face as well as the fact that the terms of their retirement benefits are being changed after their service. Please know that the budget agreement was not subject to amendment on the Senate floor. If the Senate had amended the bill, the budget agreement would have failed, given that the House of Representatives had already recessed for the year and therefore would have been unable to approve any revised version of the agreement.

This agreement, though imperfect, creates the budgetary certainty necessary for the federal government, and especially the Department of Defense, to properly plan for the next two years. It is my hope that this agreement will finally mark a return to regular order and end the series of budgetary crises that led to harmful fiscal uncertainty and a government shutdown.

As you may know, the COLA reduction provision does not take effect until December 2015, and please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate review or revise this provision in the future.

Once again, thank you for writing, and I hope that you will continue to keep me informed about issues of importance to you. Should you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website at www.feinstein.senate.gov . Best regards.

Also, may I take this opportunity to wish you a happy and healthy holiday season.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator

Mission accomplished!

Bendy

[Homestar]

At least she wrote you back. My (Republican) rep and senators didn't bother.

[herkbum]

At least she wrote you back. My (Republican) rep and senators didn't bother.

same here

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me about changes to cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for certain military retirees. Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.

Like you, I understand how important COLAs are for our military retirees and their families and the substantial concerns about reducing pension benefits. Please know that I voted against the Ryan-Murray budget proposal.

I want to close by recognizing the tremendous service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. They are patriots, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude for their work to protect and provide security for our country. I believe that our service members, retirees and veterans should receive every benefit that America has promised them, and that we should ensure that their legacy is honored and protected.

Thank you again for your letter. I hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with me throughout my service in the Senate.

Sincerely,

Bob Corker

United States Senator

EDIT: ETA Rep Senator Response letter (right now, the only incumbent I will vote for, for this and other reasons)

Edited December 19, 2013 by herkbum

[deaddebate]

Again, more info.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5345

Department of Defense Press Briefing by Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey in the Pentagon Briefing Room

SEC. HAGEL: [...] we can no longer put off military compensation reform. [...] we'll have to make disproportionate cuts to military readiness and modernization. DOD cannot sustain these current programs as they are structured. We will work with Congress to bring the rate of growth of our compensation and benefits programs in line with budget limitations and fiscal realities. We know that many proposals to change military compensation will be controversial and unpopular. One example is the provision in the budget agreement that slows the rate of growth and the cost-of-living adjustments for working-age military retirees. Going forward, I strongly support Senator Levin's efforts to review the provision in the Senate Armed Services Committee and take a comprehensive -- an overview of all the compensation programs, take a comprehensive look at military compensation reform. We need to review all options for achieving necessary savings, and we will work closely with Senator Levin and other leaders in Congress on this issue. Tough decisions will have to be made on compensation. The leadership of DOD is prepared to engage the Congress in achieving compensation reform. But any changes to cost-of-living adjustments should not apply to medically disabled retirees. These retirees need to be exempted from the changes in the budget agreement just passed by Congress. [...]

GENERAL MARTIN DEMPSEY: [...] We still need, as the secretary mentioned, to strap on the challenges of institutional reform, pay compensation, and health care changes, and acquisition reform, and we will do so. Of course, the remainder of sequestration still lurks on the horizon beyond these two years. And so some of the force structure changes, force structure reductions, that we had planned based on sequestration will march on. And I hope that in the time we've just now bought for ourselves, this two-year period, we can continue to have a conversation, a discussion, a debate, and an understanding about what full sequestration would do to the military forces of the United States. So that's where we are on the budget. [...]

Q: [...] As good as the deal was, you got $20 billion restored, there's another $32 billion roughly that's going to have to be cut. […] What areas are you going to recommend to the appropriators that they cut in the $32 billion remaining amount of money?

SEC. HAGEL: [...] I'm not going to preview what we'll be presenting and what we're not and where we're going to be cutting. [...] we're still dealing with 2014.[...]

[nsplayr]

Wrong again.

In the House vote, 169 Republicans voted aye vs 163 Democrats. In the Senate, it was 9 Republicans and 53 Democrats.

I stand corrected

[AlphaMikeFoxtrot]

Got a reply from Cornyn, valid and respectable:

Dear Mr. AMF:

Thank you for contacting me regarding funding for the Department of Defense (DoD). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

We must recognize that the primary duty of the federal government is to safeguard our citizens and provide for the common defense. Adequate and stable funding is necessary to ensure the readiness of our Armed Forces, and DoD leaders need both time and flexibility to properly adapt our military and ensure our troops remain the best trained and equipped in the world. I also believe that if DoD and Congress work together in common cause to identify reasonable cost-saving reforms, the impact of defense budget cuts can be mitigated and dire consequences can and will be prevented.

As you may know, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (H. J. Res. 59) was passed by the Senate on December 18, 2013, and has been sent to the President to be signed into law. I opposed this flawed legislation for a number of reasons, including the fact that it requires a reduction in pension benefits for all military retirees, even those who are combat-wounded and medically retired. I joined with my colleagues in calling for a vote to restore these benefits, but the Senate Majority Leader refused to allow the issue to receive a vote. Although it is clear that the military pension system is in need of reform, such reform should not impact current retirees or those who are already serving in uniform.

On December 19, 2013, the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 3304). I voted in favor of this legislation, which contains a number of important provisions aimed at easing the current strain on our Armed Forces, providing our military with critical resources, and ensuring that our troops and veterans receive the support and benefits they have earned. It also contains a number of key provisions that will improve the military’s sexual assault response and prevention efforts. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Majority Leader did not allow an open amendment process on this bill, which would have allowed Senators to vote on the inclusion of additional provisions to support and honor our men and women in uniform, including my amendment to ensure that the victims of the 2009 terrorist attack at Fort Hood are awarded the Purple Heart.

Congress shares a solemn duty to fully support and resource our troops and their families, but we also share a critical responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure their funds are spent wisely. Our men and women in uniform must have the advanced equipment and superior capabilities necessary to defend our nation and our interests around the world. Thousands of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are serving in harm’s way in Afghanistan and throughout the world, defending our nation against tyranny and terror. They demonstrate every day their professionalism and dedication to duty and country. And while monetary compensation alone could never fully repay our nation’s service members—past and present—for their sacrifices, our nation has a solemn obligation to do everything it can to support them.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent Texas in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue to advocate for a national defense budget that fully supports our troops in their current missions and guarantees U.S. national security in the coming years. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN

United States Senator

[herkbum]

Senator Alexander responded back today:

Dear XXXX,

Thanks for getting in touch with me and letting me know whats on your mind about federal spending and the Murray-Ryan budget agreement.

Since President Obama took office, our national debt has increased over $6.5 trillion. The federal governments debt now exceeds $17 trillion. This debt will be put on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. It is time to balance the governments books and live within our means. Thats what I did as governor of Tennessee and thats what millions of families in America do every day.

Thats why on August 2, 2011, I supported the Budget Control Act which reduced spending for every dollar Congress raised the debt ceiling. This was a welcome change in behavior I was glad to support. The Budget Control Act put discretionary spending caps in place for fiscal years 2012 through 2021 that limit the amount of money that can be spent through the annual appropriations process. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated this reduced federal spending by $917 billion over the next 10 years. The legislation also required an additional $1.2 trillion in automatic spending reductions over the next 10 years, if Congress failed to reduce the debt by at least $1.2 trillion. The failure of the Super Committee to propose other spending cuts was a failure of governing, and the $1.2 trillion will be cut the wrong way, without reforming the mandatory entitlement spending that is nearly 60 percent of the federal budget and is bankrupting our country.

House and Senate Budget Committee Chairs, Paul Ryan and Patty Murray, negotiated a budget for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 that would that would address sequestration and bring certainty to the budget process. While I appreciate the efforts of Senator Murray and Representative Ryan to negotiate this compromise, I voted against this budget agreement because it avoids the federal governments most urgent need: reducing the growth of runaway entitlement spending. Instead, it spends savings that should be used to strengthen Medicare, pensions, and the air transportation system. It is particularly troubling that the budget agreement takes money from pensions in a way that treats military retirees worse than the civilian federal employees.

It would have been better to pay for this agreement with a small part of the $1 trillion in entitlement savings that Senator Corker and I have identified in our bill, the Fiscal Sustainability Act, or with entitlement savings suggested in the presidents own budget. The Fiscal Sustainability Act would reduce the growth of entitlement spending in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to improve the programs solvency and make sure they are there for future beneficiaries.

Getting our debt under control is the foremost problem we have facing our country. If we do not, we will watch America pass from the hands of the ``greatest generation'' to the debt-paying generation with nothing to show for it but the bill.

Im grateful you took the time to let me know where you stand. Ill be sure to keep your comments in mind as spending issues and the future of these programs is discussed and debated in Washington and in Tennessee.

Sincerely,

Lamar

[tunes]

you guys realize these are aides/interns responding with canned letters to match the subject of what you wrote in about right?

[herkbum]

you guys realize these are aides/interns responding with canned letters to match the subject of what you wrote in about right?

Yes, I even addressed that in the opening of my initial letters. You realize it doesn't matter because it shows me how they voted on the issue and likely why they voted that way.

[Bender]

you guys realize these are aides/interns responding with canned letters to match the subject of what you wrote in about right?

I'm sure you are not somehow suggesting that one shouldn't write to their elected representatives because "aides/interns respond with canned letters matching the subject".

I assume you are merely trying to point out what you consider obvious, and I assure you, we all here appreciate that we have you to do that for us.

If you are not interested in the responses because you question their sincerity, that's fine (thanks for sharing your opinion, I'll have my intern draft up a canned letter for you in the morning).

I find it difficult to digest your post and derive any value without scotch...so....I'll wait until I get home and reevaluate.

Bendy

[lj35driver]

Tony Carr's latest blog on the subject...http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=600

[Wendell]

Whatever happened to the congressman who supposedly frequented these pages a year or so ago. I would be interested to hear why he felt the need to stab his fellow service members in the back. http://kinzinger.house.gov

[Champ Kind]

Whatever happened to the congressman who supposedly frequented these pages a year or so ago. I would be interested to hear why he felt the need to stab his fellow service members in the back. http://kinzinger.house.gov

Good find.

[Day Man]

Whatever happened to the congressman who supposedly frequented these pages a year or so ago. I would be interested to hear why he felt the need to stab his fellow service members in the back. http://kinzinger.house.gov

If it benefits him more than his fellow service members, the answer is pretty obvious...welcome to politics.

[Homestar]

The only thing I can think of is that Republicans in Congress are just happy that there was a budget deal that could pass both houses and get signed by the President. They think that since they just gave away the house, the Democrats will be willing to negotiate on future budget issues. But as long as Harry Reid is a member of the Senate I think the Republicans may as well give up. This is one-way compromise, and the only way to move your agenda forward is to win back the Senate.

I would be fine with a COLA cut as the price of passing a budget (heaven knows this Congress needs to finally do that), if the civilian retirement were affected by the same COLA cut. But it's not.

[TMFan]

I would be fine with a COLA cut as the price of passing a budget (heaven knows this Congress needs to finally do that), if the civilian retirement were affected by the same COLA cut. But it's not.

I wouldn't be fine with it. Why does it have to be about military pensions vs. civil service pensions? What about the rest of the population? What are they sacrificing if I am giving up $120K in earned benefits?

[Homestar]

What about the rest of the population? What are they sacrificing if I am giving up $120K in earned benefits?

Word.

[lj35driver]

What about the rest of the population? What are they sacrificing if I am giving up $120K in earned benefits?

THIS! The President has stated many times about us all doing our "fair share", but I don't see any of our elected officials, welfare recipients, illegals getting tax benefits, etc being asked to give up ANYTHING. As many keep trying to convey, our retirement is an earned pension, not a discretionary benefit.

[Champ Kind]

Whatever happened to the congressman who supposedly frequented these pages a year or so ago. I would be interested to hear why he felt the need to stab his fellow service members in the back. http://kinzinger.house.gov

Crickets...

[herkbum]

He's not worried about his mil retirement since he is well on his way to those cush House retirement deals. Forgot where he came from?

[Homestar]

I thought he separated from the Air Force before 20 years anyway.

[Wendell]

I thought he separated from the Air Force before 20 years anyway.

Its my understanding that he is still in the guard. I know he is not the only one to vote for the retirement cuts, but his is one of the worst because of the clear betrayal. He was supposed to be part of the new generation, our generation who served oversees and then went to Washington to make it better, while still protecting the military from unnecessary cuts. If our "friends" are willing to betray us in this way, what is going to happen when those less friendly politicians who have never served in the military start making cuts.

https://www.facebook.com/RepKinzinger?hc_location=timeline

According to his Facebook page he thanked the troops for their service and sacrifice while filming an AFN commercial then seven days later he shit on all of that by voting to cut the retirement, something he did not even acknowledge in his Facebook statement on why he voted for the bill. It makes you wonder if he even knew what was in the bill he voted on. Yet another reason to get out as soon as I can.