That's cute. This kind of fundamental misunderstanding of how things get done in DC tells me you're in dire need of a staff tour. See your detailer for more information.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NDAA FY2016 Changes to Military Retirement
- Thread starter Maxillarious
- Start date
If you think that this change in retirement plan is going to result in you, or anyone else, ending up with more hours in your logbook, bombs to drop, good deal CCXs to go on, or per diem in your wallet then you're living in a dream.
And the 83% aren't "winning" anything. They're simply getting a SLIGHTLY (a very slight) better version of the TSP masked as a replacement for their pension. First of all, good luck getting an 18yo or 19yo AN or SN to put away money for retirement so they'll "leave with something" when they're pulling in a solid 30k a year. They're more likely to "leave" after 4 years with a car they can't afford (read: debt) than a TSP account that's full of money. And IF you somehow do get the vast majority of young enlisted to invest, then them leaving the Navy after 4 years with an extra 500$ that the government put into their TSP is an absolutely laughable way to frame this as a "good deal" for them.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Do you really think that the sky is falling and the Navy won't be able to execute its mission if it doesn't shave 2% of the budget by cutting retirement?
And yea, when you throw thousands of people into the acquisition process who all want shiny new toys added to the next platform, you get cost control issues. That's how we really got here.
I think we are in complete agreement. The 83% getting a small 401K in exchange for reduced 20 year retirements is camouflage for a benefits cut to save the government money. The military may use the savings for procurement or it may go to another government agency - besides I have enough hours in my logbooks.....
You've obviously done a fine job of convincing yourself that you've got it all figured out so there's no point in me trying to discuss this rationally.
Does it truly matter whether they could find cuts elsewhere? I think that's completely the wrong question. What matters is whether this is reasonable. If reasonable compensation being offered, especially given this is an all volunteer force and changes only apply to those who want them or who go into this knowing what is being offered.
DOD needs to get more than 2% savings, and it will likely only get worse as the entitlement requirements grow in percentage of the federal budget. I would be more than interested to here specifics in where you think we can get more efficient.
I think you also need to check your facts - this was not service chief driven, but a commission brought on by OSD.
Arguing about which part of the Federal Budget we think is less deserving than our benefits is probably the least productive thing we can do here. Politicians did what they always do when it's budget crunch time, look for an area they can trim for the least amount of political pain. People are living longer, so the long tail of retiree benefits (pensions and health care) is growing to be an ever larger part of the pie.
It's telling that pretty much our only DC lobby, MOAA, mobilized heavily for the COLA adjustment that was approved and then repealed for current retirees back in the 2013-2014 timeframe. There was a lot of bad press regarding cutting benefits for those who signed up under those rules. Hence why this reduction doesn't come into effect for those currently serving or already retired. Those with an opinion can yell at the wind, vote with their ballots, or vote with their feet, and the DoD will march on.
It's telling that pretty much our only DC lobby, MOAA, mobilized heavily for the COLA adjustment that was approved and then repealed for current retirees back in the 2013-2014 timeframe. There was a lot of bad press regarding cutting benefits for those who signed up under those rules. Hence why this reduction doesn't come into effect for those currently serving or already retired. Those with an opinion can yell at the wind, vote with their ballots, or vote with their feet, and the DoD will march on.
20 or 30 years down the road when China's defense budget matches ours, it will be interesting to see how much we have to cut personnel costs so our procurement, operations and maintenance budget will be comparable to theirs. If it is anything like what happened when civilian industries had to match offshore labor, there will be a lot of pain. I am actually surprised that we kept immediate benefits after retirement, sooner or later that will be replaced by something like what the reserves receive - expect medical to get sliced for retirees as well.
Likewise, other huge structures are going to have considered for cutting: the size of the Army, do the Marines need fixed wing aviation, does the Navy need to keep carriers deployed constantly, does the Air Force need another stealth bomber? Even smaller things, such as the military having more band members than the State Department has foreign service officers are going to be discussed. There will be a lot of screaming, and a lot of slicing, but in the end changes will have to be made to match competitors. Nothing lasts forever.
Likewise, other huge structures are going to have considered for cutting: the size of the Army, do the Marines need fixed wing aviation, does the Navy need to keep carriers deployed constantly, does the Air Force need another stealth bomber? Even smaller things, such as the military having more band members than the State Department has foreign service officers are going to be discussed. There will be a lot of screaming, and a lot of slicing, but in the end changes will have to be made to match competitors. Nothing lasts forever.
Or the fact we spend $500 million a year on them.
In other words...
No, not faith, just a very poor understanding of how policy is determined in the DoD.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I don't think it would be very difficult to get 2% more efficient in other areas, particularly when you look at cost overruns for programs like the LCS. Or how the DoD has multipled the amount of GS civilians working acquisition processes in the last 10-20 years with, in the words of a former PM, 'no added value.' Heck, maybe a look at how units conduct end of FY spendexes could save 2% of the budget.
And excuse me for thinking senior leadership has buy-in on this when the CNP basically told us just that.
But hey, one thing for certain is that this isn't the only change, this is also coupled with a 5% cut to BAH that is being phased in the next few years, a reduction in annual COLA adjustments, and a revamping of Tricare being tossed around. So yea, this is only the beginning of pay/benefit cuts... because somehow comparing military servicemembers pay and benefits to a guy who works a desk is a valid comparison.
I was asking a rational question: Do you really think that Congress will let the military funding get to the point where it can't execute its mission?
I don't think so, at least blatantly so. Do I think Congress will let military funding get to the point where we have an essentially hollow force that can meet metrics, but not ? I think that's already happening.
Back to retirement, the more I think about the new system, the less I like it. It makes sense from a fiscal standpoint, but it's going to hurt career guys the most. The "one and done" crowd will barely notice the difference, IMO.