NDAA FY2016 Changes to Military Retirement

[hscs]

I'll probably hit a nerve here -

What if Congress modified Social Security and passed savings on to DOD's O&M and R&D budget? Would the debate here be different?

Personnel costs are enormous - to the point where DOD may not be able to do its real job because our pension (to include those vested in Tricare after retirement) prices us out of being able to operate.

I feel that I am reading what sounds like the classic American 'Prison scenario' in many posts - everyone agrees that we need prisons as long as they aren't in their backyard.

I see a lot of people here who would be all about a bigger budget for ops or procurement but the second they see it affect their paycheck, they get upset.

Even more interesting is the fact that this doesn't affect anyone already in...

 

[sevenhelmet]

Even more interesting is the fact that this doesn't affect anyone already in...

You make some good points, but I have to disagree with this one. This will affect everyone still in who ever finds themselves in a mentorship position, as it will drastically affect career and personal finance decisions for more junior folks in future. It may cause people you work with to get out earlier than they otherwise would have, or it may cause people to hang on longer, depending on their circumstances. Either way, just because it doesn't affect your wallet doesn't mean it doesn't affect you.

One question, will this apply to civil servants as well?

 

[Randy Daytona]

I'll probably hit a nerve here -

What if Congress modified Social Security and passed savings on to DOD's O&M and R&D budget? Would the debate here be different?

Personnel costs are enormous - to the point where DOD may not be able to do its real job because our pension (to include those vested in Tricare after retirement) prices us out of being able to operate.

I feel that I am reading what sounds like the classic American 'Prison scenario' in many posts - everyone agrees that we need prisons as long as they aren't in their backyard.

I see a lot of people here who would be all about a bigger budget for ops or procurement but the second they see it affect their paycheck, they get upset.

Even more interesting is the fact that this doesn't affect anyone already in...

Apples and oranges. Social Security is for the elderly who generally are unable to work.

 

[HH-60H]

One question, will this apply to civil servants as well?

The civil service adopted a nearly identical system almost 30 years ago.

"Federal Employees Retirement System" on @Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Retirement_System

 

[Flash]

...One question, will this apply to civil servants as well?

The civil service adopted a nearly identical system almost 30 years ago....

The civil service one is less generous though, as it should be, and is partially funded by a percentage (0.8% to 4.4%, dependent on several factors) of the employees salary.

 

[villanelle]

I'll probably hit a nerve here -

What if Congress modified Social Security and passed savings on to DOD's O&M and R&D budget? Would the debate here be different?

Personnel costs are enormous - to the point where DOD may not be able to do its real job because our pension (to include those vested in Tricare after retirement) prices us out of being able to operate.

I feel that I am reading what sounds like the classic American 'Prison scenario' in many posts - everyone agrees that we need prisons as long as they aren't in their backyard.

I see a lot of people here who would be all about a bigger budget for ops or procurement but the second they see it affect their paycheck, they get upset.

Even more interesting is the fact that this doesn't affect anyone already in...

Except joining the military is optional, and paying into SSI isn't. Also, anyone who joined under the old terms (and even those who join for a couple more years) can opt for the terms under which they signed up. So it isn't at all comparable to changes to SSI. Or to building a prison in the backyard of a house I already own. It's much more like choosing to buy a house with a prison in the backyard. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

That said, I've long said that grandfathering people in for number of years committed under the hold system never struck me as terribly unfair. I believe I was in the minority here, but saying that when you signed on the dotted line for the last 6 years and for whatever it is that obligated you for 4 more, you were under the old system, so if you want to keep that you can have half of the current pension (given that you did 10/20), and then half of the new system.

 

[KilroyUSN]

Words.

I think you misread my post as if it were defending the new changes, rather than that we will potentially lose some of the "on the fence hard charges", however maintain status quo on keeping dead weight. This is based solely on the ideas that it is no longer as good of a deal to stick around and now you will be able to leave earlier than 20, with more than you had before.

 

[Spekkio]

Yea, except the only issue is that the report done on retirement reform said it would save something like $10bil a year... and that includes with Tricare reform. I bet the DoD could find $10bil elsewhere if it really wanted to.

 

[hscs]

Yea, except the only issue is that the report done on retirement reform said it would save something like $10bil a year... and that includes with Tricare reform. I bet the DoD could find $10bil elsewhere if it really wanted to.

Where would you recommend?

And" only $10B a year " is a lot - nearly 2% of the current budget for one initiative.

 

[sevenhelmet]

$10b is a lot of money. Hard to say where that could be saved, except where it would make a lot of people's lives harder by crushing acquisition programs, training, parts, and flight hours. Those are the usual suspects, aren't they?

 

[Flash]

Yea, except the only issue is that the report done on retirement reform said it would save something like $10bil a year... and that includes with Tricare reform. I bet the DoD could find $10bil elsewhere if it really wanted to.

$10b is a lot of money. Hard to say where that could be saved, except where it would make a lot of people's lives harder by crushing acquisition programs, training, parts, and flight hours. Those are the usual suspects, aren't they?

The $10 billion a year is probably just a starting point since personnel costs do nothing but go up. It is also a fixed cost that you can't reduce unless you reduce personnel or change personnel pay policies, and that requires changing the law. That is why sequestration was so debilitating to 'flexible' costs like flight hours, maintenance and some acquisitions, those can be cut internally by DoD without changing the law.

Then there is what else you would have to cut. The USAF has tried mightily to cut the A-10 but has been stymied at every turn, even though it makes perfect fiscal sense and won't impact ops much at all other than finding a new default CSAR escort. But there is an almost religious devotion to that plane on the part of many folks that seems to excuse a lot of common sense. But Brrrttttt!! Yeah, well the S-400 sitting in Syria right now will take care of that problem real quick. So what else? The F-35? How do you suggest we replace our current fighter fleet then? Close some bases? Not in my backyard! Stop the planes from flying over my house but keep the base, and the jobs. More troop reductions? But we need boots on the ground! How about the Marines? But, but....YYUUUTTT. Subs? They don't do much, at least from what I hear.

 

[Spekkio]

And" only $10B a year " is a lot - nearly 2% of the current budget for one initiative.

2% is not a whole lot. I will bat this back and ask the following: There is no way for the military to get 2% more financially efficient besides cutting retirement benefits?

The $10 billion a year is probably just a starting point since personnel costs do nothing but go up. It is also a fixed cost that you can't reduce unless you reduce personnel or change personnel pay policies, and that requires changing the law. That is why sequestration was so debilitating to 'flexible' costs like flight hours, maintenance and some acquisitions, those can be cut internally by DoD without changing the law.

Then there is what else you would have to cut. The USAF has tried mightily to cut the A-10 but has been stymied at every turn, even though it makes perfect fiscal sense and won't impact ops much at all other than finding a new default CSAR escort. But there is an almost religious devotion to that plane on the part of many folks that seems to excuse a lot of common sense. But Brrrttttt!! Yeah, well the S-400 sitting in Syria right now will take care of that problem real quick. So what else? The F-35? How do you suggest we replace our current fighter fleet then? Close some bases? Not in my backyard! Stop the planes from flying over my house but keep the base, and the jobs. More troop reductions? But we need boots on the ground! How about the Marines? But, but....YYUUUTTT. Subs? They don't do much, at least from what I hear.

Yea, that's why there's a SECDEF and President who is supposed to resolve this childish bickering. But what actually happened is a bunch of flag/general officers who make over $200k a year and will make 6 figures in retirement got together and decided it would be better to take 20% of retirement away to save 2% of the military budget, SECDEF rolled with it, the proposal was submitted to Congress, and it eventually became law.

 

[Flash]

....Yea, that's why there's a SECDEF and President who is supposed to resolve this childish bickering. But what actually happened is a bunch of flag/general officers who make over $200k a year and will make 6 figures in retirement got together and decided it would be better to take 20% of retirement away to save 2% of the military budget, SECDEF rolled with it, the proposal was submitted to Congress, and it eventually became law.

So I guess the commission that originally proposed this was all just smoke and mirrors?

 

[Pags]

Yea, except the only issue is that the report done on retirement reform said it would save something like $10bil a year... and that includes with Tricare reform. I bet the DoD could find $10bil elsewhere if it really wanted to.

What makes you think they haven't looked elsewhere? Or that they aren't making cuts in other places as well?

The other trouble with this line of thinking is WHAT IS THE MISSION OF THE DOD AND BY EXTENSION THE NAVY? From the DoD's website: "The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country." In order to accomplish this mission the DoD needs capabilities provided by hardware, people, and readiness. Right now, resources to accomplish this mission are meager. Why should the DoD prioritize funding what is essentially a nice to have social service at the expense of it's core mission?

I'm sure there will be a tenuous argument that if retirement goes away then retention will go down and readiness will suffer. But, that's only one piece of the puzzle that needs to balanced by DoD leadership. Because how can wars be deterred without a replacement for FFGs, SSBNs, F/A-18As to name ONLY a few of the Navy pieces?

 

[squorch2]

Subs? They don't do much, at least from what I hear.

I see what you did there.