Military retirement under attack

[polcat]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/17/senate-gop-fails-in-final-bid-to-restore-military-pension-cuts-to-budget-bill/

Well you can now thank the democrats for taking more money out of your wallet. To all the liberals out there congrats your congressmen and senators value illegal immigrants over your work and sacrifices.

What I get from this article: "...a vote to "cut military pensions instead of cutting welfare for illegal immigrants."

Yep, apparently illegals are more important than US service-members. UFB.

[HeloDude]

I get what you are saying and I hold the GOP as responsible for this crap sandwich, my point was the fact that Dems blocked the restoration of the COLA cuts ($6 billion over 10 years) in favor of allowing illegals to continue to get tax benefits ($4.2 billion a year).

How did the Dems vote to block the restoration of the COLA cuts?..and how did they also vote to allow the illegals to get their tax benefits? I have checked the Senate roll call votes and I haven't seen such an amendment voted one way or another. Did Reid not allow it to come to the floor for a vote? I don't think the Senate has voted yet on Sen Wicker's amendment to restore the funding...by all means, correct me if I am wrong.

Either way--why didn't the House put up an amendment to fix the bill and restore the funding in the original bill? The GOP runs the House and they could have adjusted the language. I think it's quite apparent that I'm pretty far from a liberal (except on some social issues), but I think you're only blaming one side of the aisle when we should be blaming both sides equally. They both did it for political reasons and both believe that their end goals justify the means. And let's be honest, in the end, if you (not 'you' specifically, but anybody) are a Republican/Conservative type who is upset by this bill, you will still more than likely vote to re-elect your Republican Rep/Senator even if they voted for it. It's the power of the establishment and incumbency and it's how McCain stays in power, why Graham will get re-elected if he survives his primary, etc. Just the way people vote, which is unfortunate.

[Champ Kind]

"Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tried unsuccessfully to use a parliamentary tactic to force a vote on the amendment, which he wrote to undo the cuts for military retirees."

http://topstories.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17224&content=100867436&pageNum=1

Edited December 18, 2013 by Champ Kind

[HeloDude]

"Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tried unsuccessfully to use a parliamentary tactic to force a vote on the amendment, which he wrote to undo the cuts for military retirees."

http://topstories.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17224&content=100867436&pageNum=1

Fair enough, though the Wicker's Amendment (which does the same thing) still hasn't been voted on. And again, why didn't the GOP in the House do this where they have full control?

[Fuzz]

How did the Dems vote to block the restoration of the COLA cuts?..and how did they also vote to allow the illegals to get their tax benefits? I have checked the Senate roll call votes and I haven't seen such an amendment voted one way or another. Did Reid not allow it to come to the floor for a vote? I don't think the Senate has voted yet on Sen Wicker's amendment to restore the funding...by all means, correct me if I am wrong.

Either way--why didn't the House put up an amendment to fix the bill and restore the funding in the original bill? The GOP runs the House and they could have adjusted the language. I think it's quite apparent that I'm pretty far from a liberal (except on some social issues), but I think you're only blaming one side of the aisle when we should be blaming both sides equally. They both did it for political reasons and both believe that their end goals justify the means. And let's be honest, in the end, if you (not 'you' specifically, but anybody) are a Republican/Conservative type who is upset by this bill, you will still more than likely vote to re-elect your Republican Rep/Senator even if they voted for it. It's the power of the establishment and incumbency and it's how McCain stays in power, why Graham will get re-elected if he survives his primary, etc. Just the way people vote, which is unfortunate.

I already called my congressman's office and let them know I would not vote for them again this year, even if it means not voting since it doesn't look like they'll have a primary challenger. Yes the GOP owns this also but I blame the Dems for this because they were offered an immediate bigger savings (and theoretically a long term bigger savings, if you want to include the future money that would have been shelled out) and chose illegal immigrants over our veterans. Don't mistake my criticism and anger at them Dems for their choice as me giving the other side a break.

[TMFan]

I work on a staff with a bunch of retirees and FGOs working their way towards retirement. What shocked me was how little most of them knew about the bill. After I explained how much of a bite it would take out of their retirement checks, few seemed to care much--certainly not enough to write to their senators. It seemed to get about the same amount of attention as another proposed Tricare copay increase.

Anyone else experience the same in the office?

For those of you who were indifferent enough not to write to your Congressmen, can I ask why? Was it a feeling of inevitability? Is it just not a big deal to you?

Seriously trying to understand.

[pawnman]

I work on a staff with a bunch of retirees and FGOs working their way towards retirement. What shocked me was how little most of them knew about the bill. After I explained how much of a bite it would take out of their retirement checks, few seemed to care much--certainly not enough to write to their senators. It seemed to get about the same amount of attention as another proposed Tricare copay increase.

Anyone else experience the same in the office?

For those of you who were indifferent enough not to write to your Congressmen, can I ask why? Was it a feeling of inevitability? Is it just not a big deal to you?

Seriously trying to understand.

Because my lone voice in the wilderness means less than nothing to a senator from a state as large as TX.

[HU&W]

Because my lone voice in the wilderness means less than nothing to a senator from a state as large as TX.

That is exactly what gives your voice power. Because so many people share your sentiment, a single letter could count for the voice of thousands of silent constituents.

Edited December 18, 2013 by HU&W

[HeloDude]

I already called my congressman's office and let them know I would not vote for them again this year, even if it means not voting since it doesn't look like they'll have a primary challenger.

Really, dude?? Out of all the people on a ballot for office, and you can't find one guy or gal you think would be decent in office? (and yes, 'decent' is/can be a relative term). I get that your politics are probably closer aligned with the GOP than the Dems and you're upset with your GOP Rep/candidate, but you still have other options--you're not limited to the traditional 2 party system.

[Prozac]

I think most moderately intelligent people have seen the writing on the wall for a while now. Anyone recently retired or about to retire has likely been doing their own investing and will probably be ok. The folks who are royally screwed are in their 70s and 80s and on a fixed income. They are no longer a large enough voting block for your average politician to be concerned about. Most of us have figured out by now that you have to take care of number one first. It's nothing new that folks in this country will put an American flag on their lapels or an "I support the troops" bumper sticker on their cars, but the minute they are asked to make ANY sort of real sacrifice, they'll turn their backs. That's not to say, necessarily, that these people aren't worth defending. It's just the nature of the beast and something that every service member should understand as he goes about his work. Continue to fight the good fight. Just don't expect much (or any) recognition.

[HeloDude]

I think most moderately intelligent people have seen the writing on the wall for a while now. Anyone recently retired or about to retire has likely been doing their own investing and will probably be ok. The folks who are royally screwed are in their 70s and 80s and on a fixed income. They are no longer a large enough voting block for your average politician to be concerned about. Most of us have figured out by now that you have to take care of number one first. It's nothing new that folks in this country will put an American flag on their lapels or an "I support the troops" bumper sticker on their cars, but the minute they are asked to make ANY sort of real sacrifice, they'll turn their backs. That's not to say, necessarily, that these people aren't worth defending. It's just the nature of the beast and something that every service member should understand as he goes about his work. Continue to fight the good fight. Just don't expect much (or any) recognition.

This...unfortunately.

[Rusty Pipes]

I think most moderately intelligent people have seen the writing on the wall for a while now. Anyone recently retired or about to retire has likely been doing their own investing and will probably be ok. The folks who are royally screwed are in their 70s and 80s and on a fixed income. They are no longer a large enough voting block for your average politician to be concerned about. Most of us have figured out by now that you have to take care of number one first. It's nothing new that folks in this country will put an American flag on their lapels or an "I support the troops" bumper sticker on their cars, but the minute they are asked to make ANY sort of real sacrifice, they'll turn their backs. That's not to say, necessarily, that these people aren't worth defending. It's just the nature of the beast and something that every service member should understand as he goes about his work. Continue to fight the good fight. Just don't expect much (or any) recognition.

I agree... but your pension isn't recognition, it is compensation for services rendered

[Fuzz]

Really, dude?? Out of all the people on a ballot for office, and you can't find one guy or gal you think would be decent in office? (and yes, 'decent' is/can be a relative term). I get that your politics are probably closer aligned with the GOP than the Dems and you're upset with your GOP Rep/candidate, but you still have other options--you're not limited to the traditional 2 party system.

I switched my residency to OK when I moved to Vance, unfortunately the GOP Rep has been firmly entrenched for years and any primary challenged usually gets demolished not to mention the Democratic candidate. I didn't say I wouldn't consider other candidates (unfortunately there isn't much libertarian influence), I'm just not voting for him period, even if he's the most agreeable one in my view.

[nsplayr]

The folks who are royally screwed are in their 70s and 80s and on a fixed income. They are no longer a large enough voting block for your average politician to be concerned about.

This bill does absolutely nothing to affect those people.

The changes to mil pensions are to decrease projected COLA increases for working age retires i.e. those 62 and younger. At age 62 you go back to getting standard COLA increases each year.

Honestly this isn't a "loss" of money in the strictest sense, it's a decrease in projected increases that, for most currently serving are at least several years into the future.

Frankly anyone truly banking on and budgeting based on the government's projections of future COLA increases was smoking crack or up a creek already. Yes it's a bad deal for current retirees and those retiring soon but personally I'm not planning my retirement or my life based on projected COLA increases...YMMV.

As I pointed out, Fed civilians got screwed WAY more in that anyone with less than 5 years in service effectively takes an immediate 1.4% pay cut on 1 Feb 14. I certainly do plan my monthly budget and taking a pay cut right meow for the exact same retirement benefit is more of a problem to deal with.

Standard disclaimer that I don't support either measure, just trying to argue the points accurately.

Edited December 18, 2013 by nsplayr

[TMFan]

Honestly this isn't a "loss" of money in the strictest sense, it's a decrease in projected increases that, for most currently serving are at least several years into the future.

The effect is exactly the same. It's logic like this that allowed it to pass the House and Senate. Imagine the outcry if the proposal had been to lower the payments to 40% or 45% from 50% for 20 years served. Essentially, that is what has happened, yet few seemed to have batted an eye.

Frankly anyone truly banking on and budgeting based on the government's projections of future COLA increases was smoking crack or up a creek already. Yes it's a bad deal for current retirees and those retiring soon but personally I'm not planning my retirement or my life based on projected COLA increases...YMMV.

The fact that we've been expecting it doesn't make it right. This was, no doubt, the first of many kicks in the nuts, but if we don't put up a fight, it will only embolden Congress and the administration to try it again sooner and take bigger cuts.

[HU&W]

Senate approved 64-36. Link

also

Senators from both parties called for going back later to replace the $6 billion in cuts to future cost-of-living increases in military pensions with reductions elsewhere. "These heroes lay their lives on the line for us and they deserve us to fix this provision," Isakson said before voting for the budget agreement.

[HeloDude]

Senate approved 64-36. Link

also

McCain voted for it...as expected. Nuff' said.

[Dupe]

Senators from both parties called for going back later to replace the $6 billion in cuts to future cost-of-living increases in military pensions with reductions elsewhere. "These heroes lay their lives on the line for us and they deserve us to fix this provision," Isakson said before voting for the budget agreement.

Perhaps a BRAC round could be the source of those replacements...

[FlyinGrunt]

Nsplayr, I know you're intelligent enough to understand that what you're arguing is only effective on the ignorant millions who do not understand the concepts of net present value, time value of money, and real buying power. Constant dollars over time, coupled with expectations of future inflation (as supported by the Fed's desired inflation targets and policies to support) together add up to decreased buying power and standards of living for our veterans.

Whether you're for or against the bill is immaterial . . . anyone with a basic knowledge of economics can see right through the "this isn't a cut" argument.

[Tulsa]

Nsplayer is our resident liberal retard, just ask him if he has seen his baseball please.

[BitteEinBit]

Nsplayer is our resident liberal retard, just ask him if he has seen his baseball please.

Yeah, but he doesn't call it a baseball....

[Chuck17]

Whether you're for or against the bill is immaterial . . . anyone with a basic knowledge of economics can see right through the "this isn't a cut" argument.

Whoa partner, this is the internet after all. Didn't you know? Research, knowledge, history, accuracy - be damned!

Opinion reins. If I type louder and more often than you, I win.

Chuck

[Ram]

Opinion reins. If I type louder and more often than you, I win (but not at life).

FIFY.

[nsplayr]

Nsplayr, I know you're intelligent enough to understand that what you're arguing is only effective on the ignorant millions who do not understand the concepts of net present value, time value of money, and real buying power. Constant dollars over time, coupled with expectations of future inflation (as supported by the Fed's desired inflation targets and policies to support) together add up to decreased buying power and standards of living for our veterans.

Whether you're for or against the bill is immaterial . . . anyone with a basic knowledge of economics can see right through the "this isn't a cut" argument.

The buying power of your retirement dollars absolutely is reduced over time with this deal, no doubt. All I'm arguing is that there is a difference between a cut that takes place immediately and a decrease in projected future increases. The end result may be be the same in the long run i.e. you have less money, but that doesn't mean a policy saying "Bam, now you have less money in next month's check" is the same as what has been passed.

Not that either is a good idea...I'm sure we can all think of better ways to raise revenue to offset the partial lifting of sequester cuts even if we may not agree in what that would look like.

Feel free to gnash your teeth at the token "liberal fucktard" and etc. but realize more Republicans supported this measure than Democrats and it was not the Democrats demanding an offset to sequester changes.

[matmacwc]

Of course, raise revenue.