The 20 year pension as we know it may be going away, but a new arrangement may not be as big a hit as it would seem. RLSO mentioned the new Boeing package. OK for them, but not for the military? Lots of research out there about various pension transition plans and in many cases the employee does better in terms of retirement income. That is why I say we have to get ahead of this and make the very best of it. Yes the government wastes billions and one can argue priorities are mess up. But it isn't going to get your 20 year pensions off the table forever. The longer we wait to buy into a major overhaul the more painful it will be. To date the only material change has been a decrease in int automatic amount a retiree's pension goes up annually by just one percent. And then, only to age 60, when it is presumed the retiree will be depending on his pension more. Sorry, all the angst is chicken shit. In the last budget debate on the Hill I bet 90% of us was decrying the gnashing and wailing of teeth over a reduction in the expected increased to the federal budget. One percent reduction in cola until age 60 is absolutely survivable. It isn't the money. It isn't the broken "promise." It is the camel's nose. Kick the camel out of the tent and put a halter on it. The current system will not survive. We have to be a part of the change.
Agreed that in time, the pension plan and benefits may need modification. Also agree the current 1% cut is probably survivable if you just think about the numbers.
The problem is the ethical implications of the cuts and its execution.
What is driving these cuts?
The cost of the Iraqistan wars, estimated to run up to $6T over the lifetime of all benefits to be paid. Or additional OMN for more training costs, more Procurement to make up for the ammo and vehicles expended, or R&D for new systems and requirements like MRAPs and C-IED, and Personnel costs to attract new cannon fodder to fight for Uncle Sam.
So Congress and DOD knew and approved us going to war. When the decision was made, it was decided that it was of sufficient worth to our national security. Meaning all that we were going to expend in, the increased personnel costs of WIA/KIA, was going to be covered.
But now that the butcher's bill is due, they're going to turn around and ask vets to eat it out of what was promised.
If I served from 2001-present (13/20 years for retirement) I'd be ready to go absolutely POSTAL.
Unless there was any point in recent history when matching COLA to inflation was NOT standard, this is nothing more than an artful dodge by politicians and policymakers (to include those at DOD) to pin the blame for piss poor planning and budgeting on servicemembers.
Again, when you just think about it from a numbers perspective...it's not that big a deal. From a moral and ethical standpoint? Plain bullshit is what it is.
Other than the families of servicemembers (who are of course just <1% of the US population), our population hasn't been asked to do shit.
What would ethically be correct would be for all these costs to be rolled up into increased federal tax withholding. Even then, servicemembers and veterans would pay...but at least then everybody would pay their fair share.