An ungrateful nation Lies to it's Military again

[E.Marquez]

DoD panel calls for radical retirement overhaul.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/07/m ... ul-072511/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Those of you interested in doing more than supporting the troops with a car magnet. Please take a few minutes to look up your representatives and write them a note, asking them denounce this abysmal plan to change the military retirement promised this Nations warriors. The specifics of your letter does not matter, even a short note, to put them on notice another voting citizen is watching.. will help. Thank you



Congressmen Conway , I feel compelled to write and ask for your support in helping this Nations Military fight for what we have earned these past 20, 30 40 years.

We have done everything our nation has asked of us, spent years away from our family's. Many months out of a year in training before a yearlong deployment, and long hours at work training this nations forces even when we are not deployed.

All along, being promised something at the end, a small retirement package, something promised to us the day we joined, reiterated to us every year along the way. A carrot dangled with the idea. See how well we take care of you, give us just another year, another deployment..Only to have some out of touch committee recommend to change it all now.. With no grandfather clause to cover the promises made.

The lies of our "Grateful Nation" are evident with the view of this DOD Committee.
Please congressman, lend your support, your leadership to the men and women of the US Military, do not allow this travesty of justice..

Deployed yet again at the request of the Nation’s leaders, I await a response from my congressmen.

Sincerely

Erik Marquez..

[v-rog]

Wow, that would be a significant change!

[The Annoyed Man]

What a singularly bad idea. For one thing, it's not like members of the military are well paid by civilian standards, particularly for the hours worked and the time spent away from loved ones......not to mention the hazards of the job.

Currently, American military personnel are forbidden by law from collective bargaining (i.e. unions) (SOURCE). By retroactively dismantling the promises made in exchange for the risks taken, civilian leadership will lose the full faith of the military in that leadership. This is a nasty proposition invented by someone who never took a bigger risk than wearing a white suit after Labor Day. When the military loses its full faith in the civilian leadership, you can guarantee that there will be an active and possibly even successful movement to unionize the military. And given this administration's bending over backwards for union activism, it is difficult to imagine that there would be more than token resistance to such a thing.

In my opinion, this is not just a move to shrink the cost of having a military service, but it is a cynical attempt to cut the size of the military through a back-door means. Worse yet, it could eventually lead to a military draft again. It is also worth noting that the Dutch, for instance, have two sorts of military service..... a volunteer army, and a draft. Those who are drafted are permitted collective bargaining, and apparently unpopular orders are occasionally met with mini "strikes" in which soldiers sit-in and protest their orders.

Bronco, you can count on my sending my congressman a letter.

[E.Marquez]

In my opinion, this is not just a move to shrink the cost of having a military service, but it is a cynical attempt to cut the size of the military through a back-door means.

Your not alone in that thought. It is a common tactic.
We see it every year.. those in the top enlisted rank are subject to no notice moves, and your choice is move, or retire and be gone in under 6 months. Common is for them to see an overage in Senior enlisted (SGM./CSM) then find two at distant stations, give the both orders to move, to the opposite location.. IOW, no need to fill a slot, those positions are filled with qualified people only about to be vacant, because HRC wants both Sergeants Major to quit vice move. Another common HRC deal is to tell a Command Sergeant Major in charge of a Brigade, Division or higher,, that his next job will be some entry level brand new out of school SGM job.. Fully expecting the CSM to retire vice taking a job well below there achieved skill level.

Bronco, you can count on my sending my congressman a letter.

Thank You Sir.

Sergeant Major Erik Marquez
United States Army
Afghanistan

[Texas Dan Mosby]

Does this actually surprise anyone?

Seriously?

Our nation elected a Leninist for the position of POTUS, and there is a significant amount of the population that supports his policies, and the policy of the Leninist party he represents.

Let's examine a few numbers...


2010 national medicare enrollment: (Under 65) 8 million
(65 and over) 39 million
TOTAL: 47 MILLION

2008 national medicaid enrollment: 44 million

2009 (June) federal food stamp recipients: 35 million

Compared to........

2010 (September) military totals: (Active duty) 1.4 million
(Reserve component) 848,000
Total: LESS THAN 3 MILLION

When it comes down to it, there are less than 3 million service members currently serving in the active or reserve force. The politicians can, and will, use the 40 MILLION PLUS recipients (READ: potential VOTERS) of federal welfare, in its many different forms, as justification to enact whatever plan they choose. Considering the strategy enacted by the current administration, and the political party they represent, to actually GROW the number of dependent citizens, the military is far outnumbered at the ballot box.

What's the military going to do about it anyway, quit? Go on strike? Nope. As a matter of fact, there will be plenty of active duty senior leadership willing to jump on the band wagon and lend their support to yet another disastrous policy. The only thing the troops can do is speak with their feet.

Regardless, I'm sending a nasty-gram to my reps, will keep my musket clean as a whistle, and my hatchet scoured...

[Ameer]

DoD panel calls for radical retirement overhaul.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/07/m ... ul-072511/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did they change the article at the link? Here's what I saw. Which of their statements are lies?

the new plan offer significant retirement benefits to the roughly 83 percent of troops who leave service before reaching 20 years.

That sounds good, if it's not a lie.

The proposed change would have no affect on current retirees or disabled veterans.

.
No retroactive changes for veterans receiving benefits now. That sounds fair, if it's not a lie.

The changes are for the future, If a soldier has 10 years now, he would get 10/20th of the old benefit (what he earned so far) after 20 years, plus whatever defined contribution retirement he accumulates in the new system. If a soldier has 15 years now, he would get 15/20th of the old benefit (what he earned so far) after 20 years, plus whatever defined contribution retirement he accumulates in the new system. He gets what he already earned in the past if he vests but the rules change for the future. That sounds fair, if it's not a lie.

Businesses changed from defined benefit to defined contribution a generation ago. It's time for the government to come into the 21st century. I like the idea and I think they should do the same thing for civilian servants and elected officials.

[RoyGBiv]

Businesses changed from defined benefit to defined contribution a generation ago.

I think there's a notable distinction/difference between business and military. I don't necessarily disagree with what I've read in the article, and I'm not disagreeing with the other part of your comments, but I'm definitely more than a little sensitive about making this distinction.

I'd even split hairs a bit further and say that military folks without war-zone experience might be handled differently from front-line soldiers. This distinction is already made in much of the military compensation plan and should continue to be made in military retirement plans. The greater risk should receive the greater compensation. It sounds like this new proposal is trying to continue this policy.

It's just a painful fact that defined benefit plans are a huge financial problem. We've made promises to those in uniform that must be kept, but we need to change the promises we're making going forward to reflect the financial realities we are facing.

I think they should do the same thing for civilian servants and elected officials.

Without a shred of doubt.

[G26ster]

I believe that bronco78 is addressing troops who enlisted under current rules that give specific benefits after 20 (good) years. Changing the rules for those currently serving violates the basic contract they signed, and I fully agree it's unfair. That said, I would like to see the rules changed for "future" service members to receive some sort of benefits with less than 20 good years. I'll use myself as an example:

14 years active duty (3 unaccompanied overseas tours, including one combat tour - Korea/Vietnam)
9 years Ready Reserve (nature/distance of my job prevented active participation in reserve drills or summer camp)
Still in the Retired Reserve today (subject to recall in national emergency)

OK, so what benefits do you believe I, or others like me, "should be" entitled to? Forget what I "am" entitled to, just tell me what you think is "fair." To give you a start, I receive zero benefits in pay, medical, or base privileges. IOW, no benefits at all. I'm NOT whining or complaining, just using my career as an example to support "something" for "future" service members.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

Which of their statements are lies?

EVERY troop enlisted with the understanding that if they SURVIVED long enough to serve 20 years, they would be eligible to retire with 50% of their BASE PAY. The proposed recommendations completely change that, which is not right.

Some highlights you missed from the article:

It’s unclear whether troops would have immediate access to all the retirement money or whether it would be partially or completely withheld until a traditional retirement age, such as 65.

There is absolutely NO WAY I would have made a career of the military knowing I would not have access to retirement funds until the age of 65. NO WAY. Wouldn't have been worth it.

• 10 years of service. Troops would immediately begin accruing new benefits in a TSP account. If they remained in service for 10 more years, they would receive half of the “old plan benefit,” about 25 percent of their pay at retirement, as an annuity. If they separated after 15 years, they would walk away with no fixed-pension benefit but would have a TSP account with five years of contributions.

• 15 years of service. Troops would immediately begin accruing new benefits in a TSP account. If they remained in service for five more years, they would receive three-fourths of the “old plan benefit,” about 37.5 percent of their pay at retirement, as an annuity.

So the troops that enlisted prior to the GWOT, and actually stayed in and survived long enough to endure the inept handling of both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, and various other lethal operations going on in the world not in the headlines, are now being offered half of what they were originally going to be offered for the services they offered.

Why?

Because we can't afford to pay for services rendered to the nation? How can that be when there are 10 times the number of citizens being paid through government "welfare" programs that have contributed what exactly?

I can understand IF they opted to enact this on a specific date and HONORED all the previous commitments, however, failure to honor previous commitments is not acceptable to me.

I honored mine and was fortunate enough to survive. Many of my friends were not as fortunate.

[E.Marquez]

DoD panel calls for radical retirement overhaul.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/07/m ... ul-072511/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did they change the article at the link? Here's what I saw. Which of their statements are lies?

the new plan offer significant retirement benefits to the roughly 83 percent of troops who leave service before reaching 20 years.

That sounds good, if it's not a lie.

The proposed change would have no affect on current retirees or disabled veterans.

.
No retroactive changes for veterans receiving benefits now. That sounds fair, if it's not a lie.:

Sir I would ask that you read the article again..
It would seem you mis read some of it.
"Unlike other proposals to overhaul military retirement that would grandfather current troops, the board suggests that DoD could make an “immediate” transition to the new system,"

[Ameer]

14 years active duty (3 unaccompanied overseas tours, including one combat tour - Korea/Vietnam)
9 years Ready Reserve (nature/distance of my job prevented active participation in reserve drills or summer camp)
Still in the Retired Reserve today (subject to recall in national emergency)

The new plan would be better for a future you and for the more than 80% (if the article isn't lies) veterans who don't stay for 20 years.

[G26ster]

14 years active duty (3 unaccompanied overseas tours, including one combat tour - Korea/Vietnam)
9 years Ready Reserve (nature/distance of my job prevented active participation in reserve drills or summer camp)
Still in the Retired Reserve today (subject to recall in national emergency)

The new plan would be better for a future you and for the more than 80% (if the article isn't lies) veterans who don't stay for 20 years.

That would be true, but the gov't should NOT re neg on its "current" contract with service members.

[Ameer]

The proposed change would have no affect on current retirees or disabled veterans.

.
No retroactive changes for veterans receiving benefits now. That sounds fair, if it's not a lie.:

Sir I would ask that you read the article again..

OK. I did. This is what I saw.

direct quote

It would seem you mis read some of it.
"Unlike other proposals to overhaul military retirement that would grandfather current troops, the board suggests that DoD could make an “immediate” transition to the new system,"

That's right and if you read the article it says veterans who are retired now don't get the rug yanked out from under them. They get what they earned. If you're saying that's a lie then please back up your accusation.

The article says the change is for future service. Soldiers who have 10 years now would get 10/20 of the old 20 year benefits plus 10 years of the new benefits if they stay 20 years. Soldiers who have 15 years now would get 15/20 of the old 20 year benefits plus 5 years of the new benefits if they stay 20 years.

They would get a percentage of the old benefits based on what they already earned (past) plus whatever benefits they earn in the new system (future) so no retroactive changes for past service but the retirement benefits would change for future service. That's what the article from the Army Times article says. If you're saying that's a lie then please back up your accusation.

[Dadiggla]

The whole reason I put up with all the extra bull that comes with military life was that immediate monthly compensation. Nobody joins to get rich.
But nobody expects to get half way thru and then be told "Btw...we're not gonna do that anymore." They should pick a date and go forward with it that way. Because it sounds like a good deal for junior members. Leave mid-term and career service folks alone. Mid term folks(most) are still able to adapt. Career folks are at congressional mercy when it comes to benefits. My whole incentive was the promise of that check...every month...til the day I cease to exist. I made it, but I still have friends in that are gonna be stuck like chuck if they dont make changes to the proposed implementation process imo.

[E.Marquez]

The proposed change would have no affect on current retirees or disabled veterans.

.
No retroactive changes for veterans receiving benefits now. That sounds fair, if it's not a lie.:

Sir I would ask that you read the article again..

OK. I did. This is what I saw.

mil_retire.jpg

It would seem you mis read some of it.
"Unlike other proposals to overhaul military retirement that would grandfather current troops, the board suggests that DoD could make an “immediate” transition to the new system,"

That's right and if you read the article it says veterans who are retired now don't get the rug yanked out from under them. They get what they earned. If you're saying that's a lie then please back up your accusation.

The article says the change is for future service. Soldiers who have 10 years now would get 10/20 of the old 20 year benefits plus 10 years of the new benefits if they stay 20 years. Soldiers who have 15 years now would get 15/20 of the old 20 year benefits plus 5 years of the new benefits if they stay 20 years.

They would get a percentage of the old benefits based on what they already earned (past) plus whatever benefits they earn in the new system (future) so no retroactive changes for past service but the retirement benefits would change for future service. That's what the article from the Army Times article says. If you're saying that's a lie then please back up your accusation.

It appears you will defend something you don't understand.
There are three main points...
1: Those that entered service, did so under a contract that offered them a set of conditions for retirement after 20 plus years of service.. The contract still binds the Soldier to servitude, but the government is reneging on their part.

2: The proposal will provide LESS benefits to those who signed a contract and are subject to the post 1980 High three retirement plan.

3: The proposal will delay benefits, unlike the retirement plan agreed upon, which is benefits upon reaching 20 plus years and retiring.

The LIE, is simple.. The Government made a commitment to the soldier, in exchange for 20 plus years of service, away from home and family often, deployments to any conflict so named, required to uproot family on a moments notice, and to receive pay and living conditions sub par to what a comparable trained, life long employee in senior management or CEO level might receive in compensation... at the end of those 20 plus years a retirement package was promised. That Promise is being recommended by DOD committeemen to be broken.. That sir, makes it a Lie. Defended by some here, as fair and appropriate. As is there right.. A right, hard earned, not by them, but by those that chose to defend a nation, in years past, present, but likely, not in the future.