A little late for a fix. If a new military retirement system were only applied to members who enlist today, the savings would not come soon enough to help ensure social security lasts more than 20 years.
Since I am well likely not to receive any Social Security payments, due to said insolvency why should I care? I'm already planning for it to not be a source of income when I retire.
Not generational warfare. I gave you the choice of reducing social security survivor benefits to a high school age child, and a recently retired E-6. And you are wrong that social security was never meant to be a living wage. But it is true that it was never expected to be the fiscal burden it is now. When SS was enacted 50% of men born didn't reach age 65. Of those that did they would only be collecting SS an average of 13 years. My point is that our society and demographics have changed and too many of our social welfare programs have not kept pace. That includes the military retirement system.
...and there lies a problem. Military retirement isn't a social welfare system. The mention of it as such is down right disrespectful. It's a defined benefit system, agreed upon when entering into the military. I have grandparents who saved for retirement and are in their mid to late 70s now. They had no problem investing into a 401K, plus what they got from social security, and an IRA, why should I feel pity on those who didn't? I haven't even gone into the issues that previous generations have made and my children's children will be paying for, long after they're dead.
You accuse me of pulling on heart strings, then you bring up war casualties. War casualties and military disability get disability payments. Different system. I am not in favor of adjusting them at all, nor are any in congress. My "sob story" was on point and meant to force a discussion about the hard choices to be made if we are to keep the country from going broke. Since no one is suggesting reductions in disability for casualties, your story is all about emotion and not relevant to this discussion in the very least.
I bring up war casualties because you expect me to make a choice between military vets and poor old grandma who didn't save outside of social security.
...and you'e wrong. Again.
The second measure would eliminate the act’s COLA reduction only for veterans who are medically retired, receiving Combat Related Special Compensation and/or Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments.
https://veterans.house.gov/press-re...military-retirees-disabled-retirees-from-cola
Before the ink had dried on the Bipartisan Budget Act last month, co-architect Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., indicated in an opinion piece in USA Today that the portion of the law pertaining to medically retired service members as well as those receiving survivors’ benefits likely would be repealed.
http://www.militarytimes.com/articl...ress-moves-restore-full-COLA-medical-retirees
Nothing personal Wink. The current budget crisis has little to do with compensation and everything to do with money and budget issues. You want to argue that military retirement is unfair and overcompensates veterans then fine, but don't give us a line about picking between entitlement programs and veterans who were used as political play cards for the last 12 years and expect us to be okay with it.