Military retirement under attack

[pawnman]

Incorrect dude. it is called "High 3", not "Last 3". You retirement computation will be based on your highest three years of pay. The only real impact is what it says on your DD214 and your ID card.

So two years of LTCol pay and one year of Major pay average out to the same as three years of LtCol pay? Interesting.

[ThreeHoler]

So two years of LTCol pay and one year of Major pay average out to the same as three years of LtCol pay? Interesting.

No, but it won't cost you 1/2 million dollars.

[WheelzUp]

No, but it won't cost you 1/2 million dollars.

So I was referring to a passed over Major vs a Lt Col at 20 yrs, which will in fact cost you that much. I see now that the question was in regards to being shorted one year in grade, thereby making the impact on your three year average much lower. Still significant IMO.

[C-21.Pilot]

I'll retire as a Major -- have figured out the math, and it is in no way close to 1/2 million dollars. I'm no financial wizard, but I simply don't see a way to get to a $500K difference.

Assume:

1. ZERO inflation

2. 25% tax rates....

3. Retire at 20 yrs exactly - so you don't get the "over 20 pay scale"

4. Based on 2014 pay charts

5. Life expectancy = 85 yrs old

6. Retirement age = 42

Maj -

7280.70 for 12 months (87368.40)

7356.60 for 24 months (176558.40)

Average over 36 months = $7331.30 x 50% = 3665.65 x .25% (916.41) = 2749.24 (month) x 12 = 32990.88 in annual retirement x 43 years life expactancy = $1418607.84 lifetime

****************************

Lt Col

7974.00 for 12 months (95688.00)

8199.30 for 24 months (196783.20)

Average over 36 months = $8124.20 x 50% = 4062.10 x 25% (1015.53) = 3046.57 (month) x 12 = 36558.84 in annual retirement x 43 years life expactancy = $1572030.12

DIFFERENCE:

$1572030.12 - $1418607.84 = $153422.28

[Bender]

DIFFERENCE:

$1572030.12 - $1418607.84 = $153422.28

Now figure in the compounding interest of investing that extra $297.33 a month over 43 years. I still don't think you'd get to $500k, but you'll get closer.

Bendy

[C-21.Pilot]

Now figure in the compounding interest of investing that extra $297.33 a month over 43 years. I still don't think you'd get to $500k, but you'll get closer.

Bendy

Agreed….by my public math -- just north of $376K

[waveshaper]

It seems the gang of four (14 stars)that "came out" in support of the 1% COLA reduction may have kicked the hornet's nest. Is this blowback or legitimate/expected reaction or something else?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140129/NEWS05/301290016/Pentagon-will-review-higher-pensions-top-officers

[Fuzz]

It seems the gang of four (14 stars)that "came out" in support of the 1% COLA reduction may have kicked the hornet's nest. Is this blowback or legitimate/expected reaction or something else?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140129/NEWS05/301290016/Pentagon-will-review-higher-pensions-top-officers

Karma, they advocated screwing others and subsequently highlighted themselves and their ridiculous good deal.

[Tonka]

I didn't see it posted anywhere else:

Ayotte Files Bill to Kill Retirement COLA Cut

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/01/28/ayotte-files-bill-to-kill-retirement-cola-cut.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

During the hearing on Tuesday, no lawmaker defended the COLA provision and all who spoke agreed it should be repealed...

Ayotte said her legislation will save the government far more than will the $6 billion COLA law.

She said her bill to require parents to include a social security number for children they are listing on their taxes to claim the Additional Child Tax Credit will bring in about $20 billion. That credit enables an individual to reduce their tax liability by as much as $1,000 per child, she said.

In 2011, according to Ayotte, the Treasury Department reported that individuals not authorized to work in the U.S. were doing so and claiming as much as $4.2 billion annually by claiming the credit.

Sounds like the big discussion is whether it is gone completely or if it will just be a grandfathered clause.

[Bender]

This entire attempt on the government's part at trying to save money is so fucking beyond retarded.

This is why politicians civilian leaders need those pensions. They would be completely fucked without them...completely...stand zero chance...zero.

Someone caught a gasp of air from outside their own ass there for a second: a SSN required for a CTC...yes...keep going...

Bendy

ETA: V V deaddebate should start a blog synopsizing CSPAN hearings; that shit is hilarious right down there! V V

Edited January 30, 2014 by Bender

[Guest]

Below are my somewhat brief interpretations of the recent Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing on military retirement ( http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/recent-changes-to-the-us-military-retirement-system ).

25:30 - Chairman Levin appears fairly determined to repeal the COLA cut.

28:15 - Sen Inhofe is also dedicated to at least pursuing grandfathering if not repeal.

40:30 - ADM Winnefeld encourages grandfathering existing benefits at this time, and then pursuing curtailment/adjustments later after more study (COLA-cuts remaining an option). Essentially, he recommends not increasing any benefits for the indefinite future because our current compensation is well above the absolute minimum and money saved would be much better spent on equipment and training, because we're so darn good at spending that money efficiently.

47:30 - Dep SECDEF Fox also prefers essentially freezing benefits at current levels and then considering fundamental, radical changes. She recommends viewing AD compensation and retirement benefits as two separate halves that can have somewhat independent solutions. Changes to retirement benefits likely won't be pursued by the DoD until after the MCRM report is published.

52:00 - Conjecture of where to pay for repeal of COLA, which costs about $6B. Are you serious? Congress pulled benefits to pay for non-DoD programs and spending goals. Why do retirees need to find the money that Congress spent? Pull from DoD totals, but not other retiree programs.

1:00:00 - Dep SECDEF Fox nearly repeats the sentiments of ADM Winnefeld at 40:30.

1:03:00 Sen Manchin recommends actually performing the audit the DoD before cutting retirement benefits. The DoD has been required to perform an annual audit for the last decade, but it has never actually done one. We have no genuine, verified report of exactly how money is spent despite the congressional mandate to do it. Apparently the Marine Corps passed an audit recently, but they are the only ones to ever do it, and only just now. The DoD Comptroller actually doesn't anticipate we can complete an audit until 2017. Sen Manchin apparently is a fucking genious and deserves a damn medal.

1:05:00 - Dep SECDEF Fox & ADM winnefild cite Sen Inhofe's graphic that auditing and spending corrections would be a small portion of total spending and are dwarfed by personnel costs. I'm gonna call that bullshit, as the later testimonies by the lobbying groups prove. Also, nearly every contracting program in existence is specifically designed to bilk the budget. Until contracting is fixed, this is wasted time, which Sen Manchin also addresses. Christ, Sen Manchin is a goddamn brainiac. Lastly, Sen Manchin recommends further usage of the Guard to reduce AD budgeting.

1:10:00 - Sen McCain heavily stresses and promotes grandfathering existing personnel. God-bless that crotchety, old man.

1:15:00 - Putting it all together, TriCare will probably the main pressure point and will get some major cuts at some point in the future.

1:20:00 Sen Wicker correctly emphasizes the negative impact of COLA-cuts. He also does a good job at not getting more support from the DoD for not pushing for repealing the cuts for all personnel (not just medical-retirees, survivors, other exempt, etc.). This guy gets it and remembers the lies that were part of the sequestration and Affordable Care Act promises.

1:27:30 Sen Kaine again agrees to repeal COLA-cuts, then defends the BBA because its the first real budget weve had in four years. I see both sides of the argument, but it was still a bad rush job, and its fairly indefensible. He has some good bi-partisanship approaches, in that its really spineless rhetoric.

1:35:15 Sen Ayotte repeats that nobody in DoD, SASC, HASC, etc. were consulted, and totally disagrees with Sen Kaine. Shes usually pretty opinionated (remember the A-10 and SECAF James confirmation?), but I at least agree with her here. She then hammers the effect of a highly mobile military career and the difficulty in the post-service work career. Shes pretty on-point with the differences in retirement against a normal civilian life and why military benefits are justified. Also, she briefly mentions the O-7+ retirement plans that are astoundingly generous, but doesnt elaborate too much. GO pay should really be heavily scrutinized (and cut) in my opinion.

1:44:00 Sen Reed is pretty boring and doesnt say anything new or interesting.

1:52:15 Sen Fischer asks if the DoD has consulted any lobbying / consulting groups. ADM Winnefeld states they havent coordinated anything yet. Sen Fischer recommends coordination first.

1:56:00 - Dep SECDEF Fox states AD compensation freezes will be a part of FY2015.

2:04:00 - Sen Hagan favors grandfathering.

2:06:30 Sen Graham mirrors Sen Kaines sentiments of getting a budget done. He then pushes for coordination with interest groups. He keeps assuming personnel costs account for half of the total DoD Budget (something many groups dispute).

2:11:00 Sen Graham wants an assessment what percent of GDP is spent on DoD. He believes we need some version of heavy cost-cutting to DoD budget continue for the next 10 years (or so). His approach is not terribly friendly to the DoD.

2:14:15 - Sen Blumenthal also supports immediate repeal.

2:21:45 - Sen Vitter highlights that only the military retirees had a cut to benefits and no other federal retirees (namely civilians) had any cuts. Good point.

2:23:30 - Sen King is split on whether the undebated budget was a good idea, as he opposes the COLA cuts, but is also surprised that a budget was indeed passed.

2:57:00 - The woman sitting behind Dr. Chu is astoundingly unattractive. I just needed to comment on that.

2:59:15 Sen Levin again urges for repeal.

3:00:00 - The interest groups state that they each have met with the MCRM at least once and are pleased with the membership of the commission. Sen Levin encourages that any organization which hasnt yet meet with the commission be given that chance.

3:06:00 - Sen Inhofe brings a quick unique discussion about prioritization of retirement pay/benefits and national defense priorities. I wont try to summarize it here, but if you are considering watching it, it is certainly worth a few minutes of your time.

3:15:30 - Sen Ayotte opens with the same comment as Sen Vitter, how only the military gets the cut and nobody else. The witnesses comment on the numerous other past and proposed cuts to benefits, primarily in medical care/TriCare. Good comments by Sen Ayotte.

3:26:00 - God, that woman is ugly.

3:28:00 Sen Graham comments on the value of e-mails and other communication to Congressmen heavily sways focus and opinions of those congressmen. He then defends the existing retirement benefits as a fair and that it should not be cut. He lastly asks the groups to meet with Senators not on the SASC to discuss the impacts of sequestration on personnel readiness.

Continuation of above:

The written statements below are heavily abridged as many of the arguments are repeated multiple times through other statements and testimony. You can read the full statements via the links below, but know that most are pretty long.

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Fox-Winnefeld_01-28-141.pdf

[...]since 2001, inflation-adjusted pay and benefit costs for service members have risen by about 40%. [] Payments for housing costs have also increased faster than inflation. [...] The first aspect of our obligation is to properly compensate and care for our service personnel and their families, both during and after their service. But the second part of the contract is equally important: that we provide our troops the finest training and equipment possible, so they can deploy [] and safely return to their families. [...] Recently, Congress enacted and the President signed a change in military retirement. The so-called CPI-minus-one provision [...] It would save the Department roughly $500 million a year in reduced retirement accrual payments. It would not, however, fundamentally reform or modernize the military compensation system, and does not provide for grandfathering. A repeal of the provision would eliminate approximately $6 billion in mandatory savings that would need to be offset. The Department supports a comprehensive review of the CPI-minus-one provision, including its effect on retirees not exempted by the FY14 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. [...] If the Congress decides to retain the CPI-minus-one approach, we strongly recommend it be modified to include grandfathering, the approach the Department supports for any changes affecting military retirement.

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tilelli_01-28-14.pdf

Absent the career drawing power of the current 20‐year retirement system and its promised benefits, MOAA asserts that sustaining anything approaching needed retention rates over such an extended period of constant combat deployments would have been impossible. The crucial element to sustaining a high‐quality, career military force is establishing a strong bond of reciprocal commitment between the service member and the government. If that reciprocity is not fulfilled, if we break faith with those that serve, retention and readiness will inevitably suffer. [...] At the time the REDUX plan was being considered, then‐Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger strongly (but unsuccessfully) opposed it [...] When his prediction of adverse retention consequences proved all too accurate in the 1990s, Congress had to repeal REDUX in 1999 at the urging of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [...] Plans which envision delaying retirement eligibility until age 57 or 60 contradict the reality that the Services dont want the vast majority of members to stay in uniform that long. [...] We believe that civilianizing the military benefit package would dramatically undermine the primary military career retention incentive [] Military retirement critics have claimed for decades that this unique plan is unaffordable and unsustainable. [] Extracted from the DoD Actuary Valuation report and the Office of Management and Budget historical table 5.1, the retirement deposits into the retirement accrual account have remained relatively steady over the past 12 years. [...] Hidden in the deal is a provision that the press has characterized as modest, tiny, or teensy weensy. [] This teensy weensy provision affects over 700,000 retirees, 400,000 with post‐9/11 service, and 73% enlisted. [...] Co‐author of the BBA and Chairman of the House Budget Committee Representative Paul Ryan (R‐WI) defended the COLA cut for working age retirees in a December 22, 2013 USA Today editorial stating, All this reform does is make a small adjustment for those younger retirees. The financial impact is anything but a small adjustment. For example, an E‐7 retiring this year with 20 years of service would see an average loss of over $3,700 per year. By the time he/she reaches age 62, the cumulative loss is $83,000 [...] it creates an environment where those that serve or plan to serve over 20 years in uniform cannot count on their promised career benefits. [...] Approximately 17 bills have been introduced and nearly half of Representatives and Senators have signed on. The hurdle, of course, is garnering a bipartisan offset to replace the revenue. [...] What concerns MOAA and should concern members of Congress is that critics (and the Pentagon) narrowly use 2000 as a baseline for future growth, insisting compensation and health care costs are growing [] but using the 2000 baseline without appropriate context is grossly misleading. [] At that time, years of budget cutbacks had depressed military pay, cut retirement value by 25 percent for post‐1986 entrants, and booted beneficiaries over 65 completely out of the military health care system. As a result, retention was on the ropes, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff urged Congress to fix the problems to prevent a readiness crisis. Congress worked diligently over the next decade to restore military pay comparability, repeal the retirement cuts and restore promised health coverage for older retirees. In other words, the cost growth was essential to keep the previous cutbacks from breaking the career force. Now, more than a decade later, many of those same officials and their successors express shock that these fixes cost money. They find it convenient to forget that Congress deemed those changes less costly than the continued erosion of our defense capability. Recent military compensation studies have leaped to the erroneous conclusion that the cost trends of the last decade will continue indefinitely. Not so. [] according to Office of Management and Budgets historical table 3.2, has doubled between 2000 and 2012 from $76B to $152B. What the Pentagon doesnt advertise is that the overall defense budget grew over the same period from $281B to $651B a 131% increase. This alone shows personnel costs are consuming a smaller share of the budget. So if any costs are spiraling out of control, theyre not personnel costs. Additionally, hardware cost overruns have been left unchecked. A recent Government Accountability Office report issued in October 2013 highlighted that the Pentagons 85 major acquisition programs were a collective $411 billion over their initial cost estimates in 2012 a sum that could wipe out the remaining years of the DoD sequestration budget cuts alone. Some members of Congress, think tanks, and many in the press have simply accepted the Pentagons rhetoric without subjecting it to scrutiny. [] But because of the rhetoric, pay and benefit dominoes have already begun to fall all of which have started to bend the curve on personnel costs. [] The next salvo will be launched in February in the defense budget submission in February. Already being discussed:

Capping pay raises or even freezing pay Additional end strength cuts Changing [bAH] Curtailing or eliminating the commissary benefit Limiting tuition assistance [] TRICARE [] Restructuring the retirement benefit to resemble civilian‐like plans (401K) [] Sustaining the AVF cannot be done on the cheap and comparing the benefit package to those in the civilian workplace fails to understand the very nature of a career of service in uniform. The men and women in uniform cannot just say no when presented with orders they dont like. They are subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, a reality civilians dont face. And in order to earn the retirement benefit, service members must make it through an up or out personnel system or face being separated or discharged. The entire military family makes tremendous sacrifices on the road to retirement. Military spouses seldom establish their own careers because of frequent and involuntary separations and relocations. Due to frequent moves, military couples rarely spend enough time in one place to build equity in a home. Military children, on average, attend 6‐8 schools during grades K‐12. [] The hard fact is that military service conditions are far more arduous and career service members and their families sacrifices are far greater today than at any time since the current pay, retirement and health care systems were created.

Holy shit, this is a great testimony. Anybody AD officer who isnt an MOAA isnt a member should be. This guy has certainly earned the support. Edited January 30, 2014 by deaddebate

[Guest]

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sullivan_01-28-14.pdf

Todays Soldiers are tomorrows retirees, and they are watching. This cut in pay and benefits MUST be balanced against the long-term viability of the All-Volunteer Force. []

Continuation of above:

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Delaney_01-28-14.pdf

When you freeze salaries, eliminate bonuses and change their health care benefits, its folly to think that its not going to have an impact on the workforce. Now, that last sentence is a quote from Bradford Fitch, President and CEO of Congressional Management Foundation that was in the January 14 issue of Politico. And he was not talking about military retirees, of course, he was speaking about congressional staff and the effect that eliminating traditional health care is going to have on members of congressional staffs leaving and pursuing other opportunities. According to a survey conducted by the Congressional Management Foundation, 90 percent of staffers said they are concerned about benefit changes under the new health care law. In that same survey, when asked if they would look for another job in the next 12 months, 4 in 10 chiefs of staff and state/district directors said yes. Quoting Mr. Fitch again in an opinion piece in the January 15 issue of Roll Call, If these predictions come to pass, it would likely be the largest brain drain of talent Congress has ever seen. I have no doubt the members of this committee are familiar with this survey and Mr. Fitchs comments. But I ask you, what makes anyone think that reducing benefits that military careerists thought they had earned will not have the same effect on their decisions about whether to remain in the service? Congressional staffers are dedicated, conscientious, hard-working professionals who care about this nation and the institution they serve. The same is true of military careerists. But unlike congressional staffers, military personnel sign an employment contract that obligates them to serve for a specific length of time. Whats more, a military careerist can be sent to prison if he or she fails to show up for work. There is no other occupation in the country that I am aware of where that is the case. [] nearly every benefit that military careerists have earned is being considered for cuts by the Department of Defense. We believe that, without a doubt, cutting promised and earned benefits and compensation will have a seriously negative effect on the Armed Services and the nations military readiness. [E-5 E-7 are] 73 percent of all military retirees. Why is this important? Because so often in hearings and discussions of military retired pay the example used is of an O-5 or 6, as if somehow they are the average military retiree. [] Im sure an O6 doesnt believe the COLA cut is just a small adjustment, but I have no doubt an E7 views it as having a major impact on the retirement pay she feels she was promised, she earned, and she is counting on. An E7 receives retired pay of about $23,000 per year. The fact is, there is no way to retire from the military and have the same living standards as existed while on active duty without getting another full-time job. [] Why, after doing a job that less than one-percent of the entire population is willing to do, is Congress now going to punish military careerists? And although we oppose any COLA cut for military retirees, why, under this law, were they singled out for immediate cuts? Why were they not grandfathered in, as federal civilian employees were? [] We believe that, as our colleagues at MOAA have so ably shown, the real facts about spiraling costs are being misrepresented by Pentagon leaders. And we believe this is only the beginning of a sustained assault on the military compensation and benefits that have enabled our nation to, in an unprecedented way, field and sustain an all-volunteer force in defense of our nation. I can tell you that our members are very alarmed and fearful that this is only the first shoe to drop and they already feel betrayed. [] We must ask why, in a department that spends billions of dollars and in which cost overruns are scandalously frequent, it is the personnel who dedicate their careers in service to our nation that DoD turns to for budget cuts when it gets into fiscal problems. We urge Congress to, at a minimum, suspend personnel cuts until DoD can audit its books and see where it really spends its money.

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Chu_01-28-14.pdf

[] I believe that any changes to the military compensation system should derive from the desired shape and characteristics of the future military force. That force may share some of the characteristics of todays military, but it may also differ in important respects. [] Today we implicitly assume that all will be the same, and thus all should have, in broad terms, approximately the same compensation. It may even be a force in which some individuals move back and forth between active military service and civil lifewhat would compensation need to look like to achieve that objective? The society from which military personnel are drawn is also changing. Expectations about, interest in, and attitudes toward military service are different from those of earlier periods. [] Perhaps the most important success of the current system was recognizing that in an all-volunteer force (presumptively still our national goal) the military compensation package must remain competitive for talent with what the civil sector offers. Since we anticipate real compensation in the civil sector will grow over time, so will military compensation. Those joining the military need to know that the political system will act consistently with that reality [] and forbear from making what appear to be arbitrary changes to the trajectory of military compensation as a source of near-term budget savings. [] since a military career imposes burdens on family members that are often quite different from those borne by other Americans, some attention to the family income situation is appropriate, especially the tax on spouses that is levied by frequent moves, resulting in lower lifetime earnings for those spouses who pursue work and careers. Nor should the disruption to the childrens education be neglected. [] setting and honoring the expectations of those contemplating military service will be key to successful change. There is considerable evidence that unfulfilled expectationswhich would result if the guideposts are set improperly or changed capriciouslycan doom both policies and institutions. [] the most important issue is the ability of the compensation system to provide the military force American needsa force that may be importantly different in its shape and variety from the force weve needed in the past, or the magnificent force that we enjoy today.

This entire record is highly cerebral and is much more focused on ends over means. A highly interesting read, but he doesnt do a great job of convincing the panel one way or the other except to say permanent changes shouldnt be made in individual moments of crisis.

Statements to the Committee for the record without an attendee:

Defenders of the COLA provision have argued that military pensions are wildly out of line with most Americans' experience. Sentiments such as this strike at the crux of the issue: military service is unique and difficult. [] Congress failed to take this into account when drafting and passing the budget agreement last month. Equating twenty-plus years of military service to twenty-plus years in the civilian workforce is woefully off-target and serves to belittle a career in uniform.

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/NMFA_SASC_COLA_testimony_01-28-14.pdf

[]it is unconscionable to balance the budget on the backs of those who have already sacrificed so much. [] Another looming threat to military compensation is the proposed closure of stateside commissaries. Recent reports indicate that the Pentagon has drafted a budget plan that would reduce the commissary budget of 1.4 billion dollars by 1 billion by the year 2017, essentially eliminating stateside commissaries in all but rural, isolated areas. This is yet another blow to compensation and benefits for the currently serving and those who have earned the right to shop at the commissary as deferred compensation.

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/TAL_Statement_on_COLA_Reductions_SASC_01-28-14.pdf

The Congressional Budget Office projects the Department of Defense to save almost $6 billion over the next ten years by reducing the cost of living adjustments for all military retirees not medically retired who are below the age of 621. According to the most recent Department of Defense 2Actuary, this new law will affect just under 1 million military retirees who have dedicated 20 years or more defending the United States while wearing the uniform of this country. In short, each retiree is expected to return an average of $600 per year of their retirement dollars to the treasury so that congress can continue to wring their hands over sequestration a provision they promised would never actually go into effect. [] The American Legion has found that military members who spend a career in the U.S. military and are able to retire young enough to begin a second career, often transition with no civilian equivalent skillset, making the average transition take between two and five years before the retired military member is able to find comparable second career to begin.

[Champ Kind]

"Somewhat" brief?

[Guest]

Considering the committee hearing was 3 hours long with 6 different witnesses and 60 pages of written statements, I think I was somewhat brief.

[JarheadBoom]

Deaddebate, I gotta thank you. No matter how hard I try, I just cannot force myself to read through (or watch) all that political shit and find the "good stuff", even though I am well aware of how important it truly is.

Thanks for doing it.

[Guest]

WTF? Why is the hearing on the bill to repeal the COLA cuts cancelled?

[C17Driver]

WTF? Why is the hearing on the bill to repeal the COLA cuts cancelled?

My understanding is the entire Senate is going to vote so they cancelled the committee hearing.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140207/BENEFITS05/302070017/Senate-vote-Monday-repeal-COLA-caps-retirees

Edited February 9, 2014 by C17Driver

[Guest]

You're right.

Looks like S. 1865 was replaced by S. 1963. It's item #2 on Monday's calendar.

[Guest]

COLA repeal passed congress. Hopefully it will be signed by the President soon.

ETA: It was shoe-horned into some unrelated legislation in S.25. Here's the text:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1401a(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 403(a) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Public Law 113–67) and amended by section 10001 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113–76), is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

‘‘(G) MEMBERS COVERED.—This paragraph applies to a member or former member of an armed force who first became a member of a uniformed service on or after January 1, 2014.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on December 1, 2015, immediately after the coming into effect of section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and the amendments made by that section.

So I guess newly enlisted/commissioned folks are still semi-screwed if they intend to stay for a retirement, but they now know what they are signing into

Edited February 13, 2014 by deaddebate

[Homestar]

So....grandfathered. Just like the President promised.

[HU&W]

Grandfather clause has been signed into law.

I just love how the media is calling it a "boost to military retirement" or an "increase in military benefits." /sarcasm

[Guest]

I just love how the media is calling it a "boost to military retirement" or an "increase in military benefits." /sarcasm

I'm not seeing that kind of language in any of the online news:

http://www.sunherald.com/2014/02/15/5342630/cola-cap-repealed-mini-redux-awaits.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/14/1277670/-Sanders-Helped-Kill-Military-Pension-Cut-By-Threatening-the-War-Budget

http://news.yahoo.com/congress-clears-bill-ending-military-122152611.html

Current language is "repeal" and "restore"

Only partially seeing it here:

http://www.thestate.com/2014/02/12/3262711/senate-votes-for-higher-vets-pensions.html

I didn't even know it had been signed, as it's a holiday weekend. I'd expect much more coverage on Tuesday.

[Guest]

Interesting follow-up on the SASC hearing by DEP SECDEF Fox.

http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5379

[...]I had the opportunity to testify with the vice chairman not too long ago on compensation. The topic was COLA minus-1 and the BBA and what we thought of that, but the hearing was much broader on compensation as a whole. And we made the case about how compensation needs to go down so we can keep readiness up.

So one of the points we made to the Congress and that we've been making every chance, so I'll take a chance here, is that there's a tradeoff for our military between quality of life and quality of service. The quality of life of our -- of our men and women in the military, really high. [...] They deserve every dime of quality of life we can give them.

But they also deserve good quality of service. [...] they go to their unit, whether it's a ship or a ground combat unit or whatever, and what do they find there? They find that they're not able to fly, they don't have parts. People are short. They're picking up the slack for somebody else because the manning is inadequate. [...] And this isn't me talking. I learned this from our service chiefs. They are the ones that have brought this forward through our teamwork, our deliberations over the past year. And I've listened, because I think they're making an incredibly compelling case. [...] if we don't do something about compensation, not -- not take it down, but keep it from continuing to grow [...] It's so much more modest than what we've looked at with more aggressive proposals. But every dime of that needs to go over here into quality of service, whether it's readiness or parts or modernization, so that if we have to send them into harm's way, they can actually prevail, and we owe that to them every bit as much as we owe them a solid paycheck.

[...]So many people out there were writing, ah, efficiencies, big, fat bureaucracy, just take it out of that, it's a piece of cake. [...] We've brought it down a lot. And now we're kind of at the meat.

Yeah, we totally couldn't reduce beaurocracy or inefficient/corrupt logistics any more.

[waveshaper]

DoD proposes revolutionary changes in retirement benefits.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140306/SPECIAL14/303060030/Exclusive-DoD-proposes-revolutionary-changes-retirement-benefits

[Guest]

"The proposals are not formal recommendations and are not included in the Pentagon’s 2015 budget proposal. Making public the detailed analysis, known inside the Pentagon as a “white paper,” is intended only to inform public debate on a politically delicate issue that could have far-reaching effects on military retention."

Also the DOD has repeatedly said it will grandfather existing service members. If this change ever happens, I believe it would only effect those joining in 2016 or later.