Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Military retirees: You betrayed us, Congress

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Military retirees: You betrayed us, Congress

    Military retirees: You betrayed us, Congress

    By Jennifer Liberto @CNNMoney December 13, 2013: 3:39 PM ET
    Retired military veterans are outraged that their pensions are being cut by the budget deal.

    Video at the Page Link:

    WASHINGTON (CNNMoney)
    Military retirees are outraged that Congress will start voting Thursday on a budget deal that trims military pensions, calling the move "an egregious breach of faith."

    The Military Coalition, some 27 military groups, wrote to leaders in Congress and President Obama late Wednesday about their "strong objection" and "grave concern" over the budget deal.

    The deal cuts pension cost of living raises by 1 percentage point for military retirees who aren't disabled and not yet 62 years old. Cost of living hikes are automatic raises intended to keep up with inflation.
    The problem is, most military retirees are a lot younger than private sector retirees. They enlist in their 20's and retire in their 40's. Very few stay on till they are 62 -- those who may be lucky enough to escape major injuries at war, or rose to higher echelons in the military system.
    When compounded, the 1 percentage point cut could result in much more than a 20% reduction in retiree pensions over 20 years.

    Related: 5 things the budget deal doesn't do

    The average cut in pension payouts, including compounding interest, for a retiring Army Sergeant first class, would be about $3,700 each year, according to the Military Officers Association of America. Over 20 years, the total losses could balloon to more than $80,000.

    "While portrayed as a minor change, a 20% reduction in retired pay and survivor benefit values is a massive cut in military career benefits," wrote groups, including the Air Force Sergeants Association, Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America and the Marine Corps League, among others in the letter.

    The change is infuriating to military retirees like Army Col. Michael Barron, who retired nearly 4 years ago, after 30 years of service, which included being deployed to both Iraq wars.

    "It's not fair at all. I spent a 30 year career in the military. I clearly understood what the (cost of living increases) would be," said Barron, deputy director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America. "This is the worst kind of example of a shady, backroom deal."

    The cut is forcing some to reconsider how much longer they will continue to work with the military.

    Rebekah Sanderlin's husband is two years away from hitting his 20 year retirement mark with the Army and she's wondering if its worth it. He's served in Afghanistan four times, among other places, and has many injuries.

    "The war has been very hard on our family," said Sanderlin, a writer. "We'd like to stay in, but it seems stupid to give more time to a government that goes back on their word."

    Military groups say the cut is particularly unfair because the changes will affect those who have already put in their years of service.

    "To tax the very men and women who have sacrificed and served more than others is simply a foul," the letter stated.

    Related: A new normal for government retirees

    Washington leaders, and House Republicans, in particular, have been worried about the cost of military retiree benefits.

    In 2012, the Pentagon spent $52.4 billion on 2.3 million military retirees and survivors, a cost that is expected to rise over the next few decades, according to the Department of Defense Office of the Actuary.

    House budget chief Rep. Paul Ryan's website states that military retirement "provides an exceptionally generous benefit, often providing 40 years of pension payments in return for 20 years of service," as it explains why benefits should be trimmed.

    "Current levels of military compensation are incompatible with the overall demands on the defense budget," according to a House Committee on the Budget Report.

    Military groups say they're open to reforms, but they'd like such changes to go through the normal legislative process that allows time to review and "assess any recommendations that could significantly impact retention and readiness."

    Barron said groups like his were "blindsided" by the cuts to military pensions.


    More budget cuts loom at Pentagon



    The cut ends up saving the budget $6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Congress would also make newly hired civilian federal workers contribute 1.3% more of their paychecks to pensions if the budget deal becomes law.

    The Department of Defense wouldn't comment on the Military Coalition letter and pointed to a statement by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel saying the budget deal provides greater "budget certainty," while reducing the impact of massive cuts from so-called sequester.

    Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly characterized the cost of living cut as 1%. In fact, it is a cut of 1 percentage point.

    First Published: December 12, 2013: 11:48 AM ET

    http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/12/news...get/index.html
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    BTTT ..
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Disabled Military Retirees Not Exempt from Pension Cuts in Budget Deal

    Sen. Sessions: ‘Unthinkable’



    Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham / AP

    BY: Elizabeth Harrington
    December 17, 2013 4:00 pm

    A provision cutting the pensions of military retirees in the bipartisan budget deal that the Senate will vote on this week does not exempt disabled veterans, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

    Disabled retirees were previously thought to be exempt from the changes to military retiree pay, which could cost servicemembers up to $124,000 over a 20-year period.

    The Free Beacon previously reported that military retirees under the age of 62 would receive 1 percentage point less in their annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in the plan crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D., Wash.).

    The section of the U.S. code that has been altered also applies to disabled servicemembers, many of whom have been wounded in combat.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, called the change “unthinkable.”
    “It has been asserted that the controversial change to military retirees’ pensions affects those who are ‘working-age’ and ‘still in their working years,’ with the clear suggestion being that these individuals are able to work,” Sessions said in a statement. “That’s why I was deeply troubled when my staff and I discovered that even individuals who have been wounded and suffered a service-related disability could see their pensions reduced under this plan.”

    “It is unthinkable that this provision would be included in a deal that spares current civilian workers from the same treatment,” he said. “An equivalent amount of savings and more can be easily found, and I hope the Senate will move to address the unbalanced treatment of our servicemembers before considering the legislation any further.”

    An original copy of a summary of the budget agreement, obtained by the Free Beacon, explicitly stated that disabled veterans would be exempt.

    “This provision modifies the annual cost-of-living adjustment for working-age military retirees by making the adjustments equal to inflation minus 1 percent,” reads the summary, which was sent on Dec. 10. “This change would be gradually phased in, with no change for the current year, a 0.25 percent decrease in December 2014, and a 0.5 percent decrease in December 2015.

    “This would not affect servicemembers who retired because of disability or injury.”

    The summary now posted on the House Budget Committee website removed the sentence relating to disabled retirees.
    The Ryan-Murray deal affects Chapter 71, Section 1401 of the United States Code, which deals with the pay of military retirees.

    As the code is currently written, servicemembers can be eligible for early Chapter 61 retirement if it is determined that, due to a physical disability, that individual is no longer able to perform the duties of their office, grade, or rank. The individual must hold a disability rating of 30 percent or more according to Department of Defense standards, and the disability must be the proximate result of performing their duties during a time of war or national emergency.

    Section 403 of the budget agreement amends section 1401a(b) of Title 10, U.S. Code, adding the “CPI minus one” percent provision, lowering the COLAs of disabled retirees.

    Wounded servicemembers are entitled to Veterans Administration Disability Benefits, which remain unchanged by the budget deal. However, the change to Chapter 61 retirement could account for about 55 percent of a wounded service member’s disability pay, according to a Senate aide.

    For example, a 28-year-old staff sergeant (an E-5 rank) who is forced to retire after 10 years would see approximately $50,000 in lost compensation over the next 40 years.

    Rep. Ryan told the Weekly Standard that the changes are appropriate because servicemen and women who retire in their 40s after serving for two decades are still young enough to maintain a job.

    “We give them a slightly smaller adjustment for inflation because they’re still in their working years and in most cases earning another paycheck,” Ryan said.

    Sens. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), and Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) have said they are opposed to the deal because it cuts the benefits of military retirees, while not imposing equal cuts to federal civilian workers.

    Will Allison, spokesman for the House Budget Committee, said the COLA provision does not offer any exemptions.

    “The federal government has no greater obligation than to keep the American people safe,” Allison told the Free Beacon. “And it must take care of the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line. To meet our obligations to our service men and women, we must make sure their long-term benefits are on a sound, financial footing.”

    “Specifically to your question,” Allison said, “the COLA provision does not include additional exemptions, but to clarify: The Bipartisan Budget Act does not affect any benefits provided to veterans in compensation for disabilities suffered as a result of their service.”

    “There are no changes made to disability-compensation benefits and no changes that would impact their VA-provided medical care,” he said.

    The Senate is expected to pass the deal by a simple majority this week, after it cleared a crucial procedural vote on Tuesday.
    Over the weekend, Ryan said it is possible to make changes to the military retiree provision, since it will not take effect immediately.

    “We delayed this provision so that it doesn’t take effect until the year 2016, which gives Congress and the military community time to address the broader compensation issue, including this provision, if people believe there’s a better way to solve this problem,” he told the Weekly Standard.

    Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) also has said he will review the cut to military pensions.
    “We’re going to look at the whole benefits issue for veterans,” Levin told Stars and Stripes on Friday. “I can’t obviously make a commitment, but I am committed to reviewing this and looking at the impacts.”

    http://freebeacon.com/disabled-milit...n-budget-deal/
    Last edited by HAPPY2BME; 12-17-2013 at 10:09 PM.
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •