Go Back   Corvette Forum > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ Vendor Directory
Search
Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Welcome to Corvetteforum.com!
Welcome to Corvetteforum.com.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Corvetteforum.com today!


Corvette Store
 
 
C7 Parts & Accessories
C6 Parts & Accessories
C5 Parts & Accessories
C4 Parts & Accessories
C3 Parts & Accessories
C2 Parts & Accessories
C1 Parts & Accessories
Wheels & Tires
Sponsored Ads
 
 
Vendor Directory
  
Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-09-2013, 07:50 AM   #1
Grumpy
Moderator
Cruise-In 5-6-7-8 Veteran
St. Jude '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-10-'11-12-'13-'14
NCM Sinkhole Donor
 
Grumpy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2001
Location: What I know, is dwarfed by what I pretend to know

Default Budget negotiators looking at military pensions

By: David Rogers
December 8, 2013 04:47 PM EST


Can savings from military pensions be part of the solution to avoid deeper cuts from defense next month?

That’s an important question facing House-Senate negotiators as they try to close out a deal this week to avoid another round of sequestration in January and restore some certainty to the appropriations process for the remainder of this Congress.

The two sides appear close but Democrats are anxious about the level of savings being sought by Republicans from civilian federal workers. Finding some money on the military side of the equation could lessen this burden and make the package more equitable too from a political standpoint.

Indeed, the Pentagon has the greatest stake in some agreement and faces a further $21 billion cut in its 2014 budget if nothing is done. There is a greater recognition too –in Congress and among the Joint Chiefs— that it must come to terms with personnel-related costs, which are eating up more and more of what money remains.

“Forty-four cents of every dollar we spend goes to military personnel,” said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R.-Calif.) “You look at Detroit, you look at General Motors, you look at what happens when you build up these costs, but we aren’t doing anything about it in our [defense] bill this year.”

On the retirement front, President Barack Obama’s 2014 budget opened the door for the GOP by proposing to increase what federal employees contribute to their pensions: adjusting the number upward in three increments from .8 percent of pay to 2 percent.

When this was last proposed, Congress instead decided to charge newly-hired workers even more. The administration proposal seeks to impose its earlier plan on those hired before 2013. The estimated savings are about $20 billion over the coming decade.


But $20 billion from federal workers –in what’s anticipated to a very modest budget package—can seem out of proportion. And at a time when many of the same employees have seen their pay frozen—and even cut through furloughs over the past year—there is strong resistance from well-connected Democrats, most especially the Maryland delegation.

The challenge for negotiators is to navigate these waters –and some believe that finding savings from the military side could help.

The Obama budget partially opened the door here as well. But the president tended to focus more on pharmacy fees and premiums charged for TRICARE just as the president did with more Medicare means-testing. But since Democrats have ruled out big Medicare changes—without some concessions by the GOP on taxes—there is a reluctance to go down the TRICARE road now.

That brings the focus back to a military pension system that already represents a huge unfunded liability for the government. And unlike the civilian side, it demands no direct pay deductions from active duty military personnel.

Instead Congress appropriates billions each year to a military personnel line-item knows as “retired pay accrual.” In 2014 this amounts to nearly $16.8 billion for the active duty military –roughly two thirds for enlisted personnel and one third, officers.

(That translates into about $12,334 per individual assuming an end-strength of 1.36 million personnel. Put another way, it’s roughly 32 cents on top of every dollar of base pay.

Even so, this doesn’t come close to the $50 billion which the Congressional Budget Office estimates is paid out each year to military retirees and their survivors. And since benefits continue to be a function of pay, critics have long argued that some contribution is warranted given the higher salaries of the all-volunteer force.

A second issue is that the system only benefits those who serve 20 years or more, meaning a fraction of those who serve ever benefit. Historically it is far more likely that officers will collect a pension than enlisted personnel.

The situation is far too complex to be resolved in a short-term budget deal, but if officers alone were asked to contribute 2 percent of their base pay to the retirement system, for example, it could save at least several billion dollars over 10 years.

A second option included in a recent CBO report calls for lengthening the pay period used to calculate a retiree’s annuity. Right now, this is typically based on the three consecutive years of highest earnings for a civilian; 36 months for the military.

CBO estimates that if that were changed to five years on the civilian side and 60 months for the military it could trim the combined pension costs by about $5.5 billion over 10 years. The military would share in this: accounting for about $2.1 billion. And it would appear a greater share of the savings would come from officers and higher-ranked civil servants.
Grumpy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 08:46 AM   #2
ET
CF Senior Member
 
ET's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2000
Location: New Iberia Louisiana
Default

It's Tommy this, and Tommy that and chuck 'im out, the brute

But 'tis savior of our country when the guns begin to shoot.......
ET is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 05:05 PM   #3
phileaglesfan
CF Senior Member
 
phileaglesfan's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Northern Utah
Default

And yet our govt posses away $24bil for the govt shutdown. Kill the pension and you'll kill the all volunteer military. People will just get out once they are trained for no money on their part.

How about dumping Congress retirements, their job was never supposed to be a career anyway? Stupid pubs will lose even more votes. Hello Hillary in 2016.
phileaglesfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 05:10 PM   #4
URUSAINA
CF Senior Member
 
URUSAINA's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2010
Location: Yoga Tokyo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phileaglesfan View Post
And yet our govt posses away $24bil for the govt shutdown. (1) Kill the pension and you'll kill the all volunteer military. People will just get out once they are trained for no money on their part.

(2) How about dumping Congress retirements, their job was never supposed to be a career anyway? Stupid pubs will lose even more votes. Hello Hillary in 2016.
1- Bring back draft = cannon fodder

2- Different appropriation/ same taxpayer
URUSAINA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 05:22 PM   #5
RetiredSFC 97
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '09-'10, '14
 
RetiredSFC 97's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere in Mo
Default

This has been debunked before. Do I really need to post the same article again that debunks this?

Quote:
For fiscal year 2013, the Department of Defense (DoD) requested about $150 billion to fund the pay and benefits of current and retired members of the military

Actually that number is 138 Billion for veterans. Total 2013 defense is 821 billion.

Total welfare spending is 403 billion. We spend more than double on welfare programs than we do veterans

here's the numbers boys, play with it as you like.

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federa...n_3040#usgs302
RetiredSFC 97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 05:38 PM   #6
Z06PSI
CF Senior Member
 
Z06PSI's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2007
Location: Honolulu Hawaii
andrew.c.baker38 andrew.c.baker z06psikennebell andrew.c.baker
Send a message via Skype™ to Z06PSI
Default

We spend almost as much as they want to save giving to the Afghan contractors/warlords. I looked it up this weekend. It is within 1 billion of each other.
Z06PSI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 06:47 PM   #7
VITE1
CF Senior Member
Cruise-In X Veteran
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10
Support Corvetteforum!
 
VITE1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: SalemNH/Port St Lucie FL Life is hard, Then you die, NH USA
Send a message via Skype™ to VITE1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97 View Post
This has been debunked before. Do I really need to post the same article again that debunks this?




Actually that number is 138 Billion for veterans. Total 2013 defense is 821 billion.

Total welfare spending is 403 billion. We spend more than double on welfare programs than we do veterans

here's the numbers boys, play with it as you like.

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federa...n_3040#usgs302
Th actual Welfare spending is closer to 1 Trillion a year when you take all of the programs and the states contributions into account.
VITE1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 08:23 PM   #8
Trainman-2
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Trainman-2's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Bunnell FL
Default

When I went on Active Duty, Title 10, AGR, as a National Guardsman, I signed a form agreeing to involuntary assignment anywhere in the World to meet the needs of the DOD.

I recall a few years ago when Civilian Employees of the State Department objected vigorously to involuntary assignments in dangerous places like Afghanistan or Iraq. They all called their Congress Critters and the State Dept backed off!

Today, most young people who enlist in the Military do so for the GI Bill education benefits. Some decide to stay in after their initial enlistment, almost always for the retirement benefits if they stick it out for 20 or 30 years.

Military and Civil Service employment are two totally different things.

It is important to remember this...
Trainman-2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 08:53 PM   #9
VITE1
CF Senior Member
Cruise-In X Veteran
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10
Support Corvetteforum!
 
VITE1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: SalemNH/Port St Lucie FL Life is hard, Then you die, NH USA
Send a message via Skype™ to VITE1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainman-2 View Post
When I went on Active Duty, Title 10, AGR, as a National Guardsman, I signed a form agreeing to involuntary assignment anywhere in the World to meet the needs of the DOD.

I recall a few years ago when Civilian Employees of the State Department objected vigorously to involuntary assignments in dangerous places like Afghanistan or Iraq. They all called their Congress Critters and the State Dept backed off!

Today, most young people who enlist in the Military do so for the GI Bill education benefits. Some decide to stay in after their initial enlistment, almost always for the retirement benefits if they stick it out for 20 or 30 years.

Military and Civil Service employment are two totally different things.

It is important to remember this...
Let's not forget the times those in the Military spent months in jungles hunting the enemy while being infected with all sorts of fun diseases that stayed with them their whole lives. Or the call at 5AM saying " Pack your bags you are going to War" and not coming home for two years. Or the many disappearances for weeks at a time only to come home and say "I can't talk about it" yet his family watches as he screams in his sleep.


While we keep increasing Food stamps, Welfare, Section 8 and Medicaid for those that have done nothing other than fail to do their minimum to support themselves.
VITE1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2013, 08:53 PM
 
Go Back   Corvette Forum > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Reload this Page Budget negotiators looking at military pensions
 
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Click for Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CBO Studies Removing Retirees From TRICARE Prime. Arcticshark Politics, Religion & Controversy 66 01-25-2014 05:04 AM
It's Time to Cut Military Health and Pension Benefits Trainman-2 Politics, Religion & Controversy 31 01-05-2014 07:36 AM
Military Entitlements Are Killing Readiness Trainman-2 Politics, Religion & Controversy 261 08-03-2013 12:45 PM
Think Tank Recommends Big Military Benefits Cuts Force-1 Politics, Religion & Controversy 84 11-05-2012 09:00 PM
Fact vs. Fiction on Military Personnel Costs, Parts 1, 2, & 3. Trainman-2 Politics, Religion & Controversy 0 09-15-2012 03:58 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:11 AM.


Emails & Password Backup