I give it even better odds now that this COLA 'adjustment' is going to be repealed, it looks like
more and more folks in Congress are lining up behind a repeal of it before it takes effect next year. While this round may soon be over I think it is just the opening salvo, I think there will be a lot more debates about the future of the current military retirement system in the near future. I don't think it will be singled out for a COLA change though, one proposal is to change most or all government benefit systems to a 'chained CPI' which would save an estimated $130 billion over 10 years. I could see military pensions and veteran benefits swept up in that too as part of an overall budget cut/reduction.
I am a little disappointed in some of the hyperbolic venting that some of my peers have seem to have taken to when talking about this, this thread is one of the calmer reactions I have seen to this controversy. While certainly not the smartest or fairest cut, for the pretty small amount of $6 billion, it is not the apocalyptic calamity that some seem to be making it out to be. The COLA reduction would reduce the
total retirement pay of an E-7 who retired at 38 from $1.734 million to $1.626 million on average, while a reduction it is still 94% of his original pension (it also shows the real value of retirement pay btw). So was it right to single out the military pensions for this kind of cut? And not grandfather in the folks who are already in the system? Probably not. But it sure as hell ain't the end of the world like some seem to rant on about.
Isn't the 20 year things largely a retention program as well, though? Giving some retirement to people who get out at 5, 10, 12 years would, I would think, cause retention issues, and maybe even create additional expenses by requiring bonuses.......
It is a retention thing but 20 years shouldn't be a magic number for the all or nothing system we have now. I have known quite a few people who have stayed in past 12, 14 or 16 years and just 'marked time' until they qualified for their pension. To be frank I don't think we need a large number of those folks who stay past the 'peak' in their career. Sure there are plenty of jobs out there for them but a hell of a lot of them are just fillers, take a look around any staff (joint, service, base) and you will have no problem finding scores of officers and enlisted in those 'filler' jobs.
A perfect example would be a post-DH non-command select aviator. If not selected for command there are some useful and valuable jobs out there for some who want them but I know plenty of guys who have been on 'cruise control' and just did what was necessary until 20 just to get retirement. Nothing wrong with that since they are dealing with the cards the military has given them but it often doesn't do the military or the sailor/Marine any real service. Giving aviators an option to 'retire' after finishing their flying careers, which is arguably the case for most post-DH non-CO select O-4/5's, would not only save the military money it would get a lot of folks who are 'done' with the military a better incentive to leave to go fly for the airlines while still current or get an earlier start at XYZ corporation/firm. The same applies across quite a few specialties, a lot of maintainers reaching the peak of their skills as an E-5 or E-6 with 6-12 years in.
Conversly, reforming the military pension system so that some people stay in longer could actually help retention overall keeping in the people the military needs in longer rather than just everyone who makes it past a certain goalpost.