Retiree Benefits for the Military Could Face Cuts

[alp227]

Source: The New York Times

As Washington looks to squeeze savings from once-sacrosanct entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, another big social welfare system is growing as rapidly, but with far less scrutiny: the health and pension benefits of military retirees.

Military pensions and health care for active and retired troops now cost the government about $100 billion a year, representing an expanding portion of both the Pentagon budget — about $700 billion a year, including war costs — and the national debt, which together finance the programs.

Making even incremental reductions to military benefits is typically a doomed political venture, given the public’s broad support for helping troops, the political potency of veterans groups and the fact that significant savings take years to appear.

But the intense push in Congress this year to reduce the debt and the possibility that the Pentagon might have to begin trimming core programs like weapons procurement, research, training and construction have suddenly made retiree benefits vulnerable, military officials and experts say.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/retiree-benefits-for-the-military-could-face-cuts.html?pagewanted=all

[Bigmack]

1. I have a modest proposal...

Stop making so many veterans.

[Occulus]

38. Another fun proposal:

Compare and contrast the responses to this news with similar threads regarding the USPS.

Telling, isn't it?

[boppers]

57. What's the average kill ratio in the USPS?

There seems to be an apples and oranges comparison, between war machines, and delivering letters.

[theslickdumpling]

2. military health and retirement cuts?

I find it appalling that we cut these benefits, these promises
we made. Our word to our military should be kept. I am
thinking we can find plenty of other places to cut. We should
look at each lobbyist office on K street, look at their
special programs, any money that goes toward their agendas and
start cutting there first.

When people give huge chunks of their lives for our country or
in a job where they are promised benefits when they retire, we
owe it to them to make sure the promises are kept.

www.theslickdumpling.com

[greiner3]

4. I find it appalling;

That ANY entitlement program could be up for reductions.

[former9thward]

9. Cutting personnel costs are the only way to effectively cut the Defense budget.

Guns and ammo are not the biggest parts of the budget -- personnel costs are. Without cutting those significantly forget about cutting the Defense budget which everyone claims they want to do.

[Kolesar]

17. Fighting forces were reduced by tens of thousands for the Iraq War/quagmire

Presidents Rumsfeld and Cheney realized that they could not rely on the reserves, national guard, and calling up "inactive" reserve members for the headcount they needed.

[fasttense]

20. That's just pure spin.

Let's cut out all those Halliburton (no longer an American company but a Dubai corporation) contracts 1st and see how much money this country saves.

It's contractors who are getting rich off of war that are running the price tag of war up. Let's cut out all those GE contracts (a corporation who gets welfare and pays NO taxes to the US) for things the troops can do themselves.

And tell me that a billion dollar tank doesn't run up the cost of war?

It's just easier to screw the disposable vet who got his leg shot off than to cut back golden defense contracts of a corporation with lobbyists.

[newspeak]

37. that's right, we need to cut the contractors

little boots privatized some services that once was done by the military. Those contractors make big bucks of our money while some give our soldiers shitty services. Remember the electrifying showers, how about the tainted water-drinking water, then showers. Some of the soldiers got sick on the water and had rashes from the showers. And, how about those toxic burn pits?

And then there's the contractors who were supposed to help build Iraq. We got buildings that can't be used because they did such a shoddy, unsafe job. But, hey we're paying for all of it.

a government that starts bogus wars for greed, putting our soldiers needlessly in harms way and then wants to cut that which they deserve. Some of these soldiers have done six to seven tours. At least Vietnam when there was a draft, two tours and you were done unless you wanted to stay. It's like the government is using them as a "thing", an item to be used until they're either killed, wounded or no longer useful. For what many have gone through, they deserve the medical services and the money.

[demigoddess]

40. One way to cut it big time is to stop having wars!!

every two and a half minutes the republicans start a war and do not figure the long term costs. for example, the additional military vets who must be taken care of long term. Some vets of this last war have come home brain damaged to the extent they cannot take care of themselves and have to have their parents named as their guardians. Not something that reaches the newspapers, but we have seen these parents on base.

[MadMaddie]

10. Our word to any of our citizens should be kept

especially the military. My father is retired military and he put in his time. The people proposing these cuts only care about using the military to show military might but don't give a damn about them after they have served their purpose.

You see, you have to look at the "job makers" broken promises to retirees. That was the map to attack military retirees and veterans...no one was paying attention....

The Republicans are going after everything that provides some peace of mind for the average citizen.

They are playing their hand....the question is what are Americans going to do...?

[sce56]

27. Thank You!

[jwirr]

3. Once again it is the people who get cut not the corporations. Oh well,

overstretch seems to be the way we will eventually get rid of the empire. But it is not the smart way. You would think that the CIA or the Pentagon would have read Paul Kennedy's book and then followed up with the Chalmers Johnson books.

When it comes to inconvenient truths people are just plain cowards. Or they are just riding the storm out till the very end.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. No surprise, is it?

Everyone is going to get a king size whuppin'

Take a number.

[Swede]

6. Park one of the aircraft carriers.

Maybe two.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. on top of the GOP Washington delegation.

[StatGirl]

8. Why are they lumping health care costs for current military folks

. . . in with the retiree benefits?

That reminds me of the way politicians like to lump Medicare costs with Social Security costs and then say that both of them have to be cut, even though Social Security isn't the problem.

That said, there are two obvious partial fixes. One: the annual premium hasn't changed since 1995, and it's reasonable to at least increase it according to inflation.

Second, if military retirees have other jobs but prefer to use Tricare, and if those jobs offer health care benefits, then the employers should reimburse the Federal government by the amount that they would normally pay for health insurance.

[fasttense]

21. They already do that.

If you have military retirement health care and civilian health care, the civilian health care always pays first. What is left over (if anything) is paid by the military health care. But that all depends on what coverage you have. If you have a 20% deductible thru TriCare and your civilian health care pays 80% of the cost, the military health care pays Nothing.

But here's is the kicker. The military, the US government, promised every retiree that they would get free health care for life. So a training and education specialist, did not take that lucrative job with the community college and completed his 20 to 30 years in the military because he was promised health care for life. But now that we have taken his labor, put his life at risk and gotten what we wanted, we are going to renege on that agreement. So much for that contract, we need to pay for billion dollar bailouts for banks with that money.

[sce56]

28. BINGO! I was promised free medical and dental for life did my part now no Dental and I pay 4 Tricare

[boppers]

58. I can't tell if you're joking.

You really thought you were getting dental, for life?

Seriously?

[StatGirl]

51. I didn't express myself well

I meant the premiums themselves. If a person can either pay $400/month for health care through their employer (who kicks in another $500/mo, let's say), or $460/year for Tricare, and chooses Tricare, then the employer should reimburse Tricare for the $500/mo that they now don't have to pay.

As for the issue that you raised, I have Tricare Prime as a secondary insurance to an 80/20 plan. It is my experience that Tricare picks up most of the part that my first plan does not (that is, my deductible, plus the 20% that my insurance doesn't pay). I've only had to pay some minor co-pays, and I've had some pretty heavy duty medical stuff going on lately. I haven't gone out of network, though.

[reformist2]

11. All this because the rich don't want to pay more taxes.

And they get their way because the Top 1% control 60% of the votes in Congress, maybe more. It really is sickening.

[Posteritatis]

56. Hell, because a lot of the poor don't want the rich to pay more taxes, too. thanks, TP! (nt)

[classysassy]

12. Cut our entitlements when you cut your own

Hello congress,you greedy bastards send your kids to fight the next war you start.Every evil republican should be kicked out of office.The stupid people in this country continue to let the wealthy criminals get away with their evil deeds.

[No Elephants]

Someone has to suffer to make sure banksters get bailed out.

AFter all, if they had gone went out of business, who'b be foreclosing on everyone instead of trying to work out something?

[No Elephants]

13. Self delte. Dupe.

[Zambero]

14. Dismantle the Empire

At least partially. Closing 75-100 overseas military bases would be a good start, and that would still be less than half the total. We can no longer afford to police the world AND assure our own security. Thinning out the task-redundant army of private military contractors spawned under Bush-Cheney would also save a bundle.

[MADem]

15. They tried to do this in the eighties. They actually passed it. It didn't work.

They couldn't get the numbers or the quality they needed, so they went back to the old ratios.

They will try to cut costs by screwing w/Tricare, though--I'm sure of that. They'll probably kick up the monthly payment, and the co-pays as well.

All that said, no matter where retirees get their care, they need to keep their medical personnel at full end-strength, even when they draw down the "fighting forces." Why? Because you can mobilize warfighters fairly quickly, through reserve callups, NG recalls, and the draft, but it takes a LONG time to train medical personnel.

The way they keep the medical personnel busy during the down times is to let the retirees access care at military medical facilities. It's a popular option during contractions in the fighting forces. Be a real pain if they start trying to charge for that.

[demigoddess]

41. they are already talking extra costs of tricare, we got notice

and they are jiggling with our drug co-pays.

[MADem]

42. I know. I got the note, too. Head to the base when you can! NT

[Kolesar]

16. Congress will quit giving "cost of living" raises to the military

...and then pension costs will be ultimately reduced. I have seen the military go years without a "raise" in the past.

[Waiting For Everyman]

18. This is a good way to get more vets on our side.

The GOPers will overreach and go "one step too far" eventually, it is inevitable. Something like this could be it.

[Mumblefratz]

19. Why are cuts always directed at people instead of corporations?

While I don't begrudge any of the benefits given to our veterans there is a significant difference in how these benefits are distributed that does represent a certain amount of unfairness.

I work at a DoD research facility along side many veterans, most of which are in their early 40's and are earning salaries in the range of $60,000 to $80,000 while at the same time collecting their full military pension.

Contrast this to a non veteran trying to collect their Social Security, who in the first case must wait at least until they are 62 before they can start collecting a reduced benefit and who if they are still working and earning more than a pittance that pittance reduces the amount of Social Security they can collect. In comparison a veteran could have been collecting their FULL pension for 24 years while also earning a full salary by the time they reach 62 years old.

That's a tremendous difference.

[USAMSGRETIRED]

25. Why are cuts always directed at people instead of corporations?

Interesting that you work for an organization design to help former service member's! As for retirees working and drawing an income doesn't the former Presidents/congressmen and any other who's who that gets a retirement work after they retire? Clinton gets paid real well at speaking engagements doesn't he?

Well although I did retire at age 39 from the Army, it's hardly enough to live on while still raising a family. I get 51% of my income when on active duty, that is base pay not anything else. I pay for my health care yearly with any cost that is not covered. I pay for my dental, again their is a cost share that Uncle doesn't pay for.

I pay for Survival benefit for my spouse, oh yeah she would end up with 50% of my retirement, how wonderful is that after following and supporting me all over the world in my career for 21 years (50% of the 51% that I get)!

We signed up not for the money, because there really is no money to be made serving our country. I was promised if I stay in long enough to retire then I would get "FREE" health care, "FREE" dental neither is true. I joined in Aug 80 the turning point in which soldiers were somewhat smarter! The smart ones got out and worked for civil service right?

Seems to me my whole career was "Serve, Protect, and Defend" your pampas 4 point of contact! Soldiers make sacrifices every single day while serving our country that you could not possibly recognize, and if a soldier is physically and mentally capable to work next to you, then you should be honored to have them as a co-worker and not worry about what they get for retirement, because it falls very short in comparison to the people we serve.

[Alcibiades]

29. Actually, the smart ones did their 20

and then got jobs with the civil service. My grandfather, a WWII & Korea vet, did this, and also collected social security, so he was a "triple dipper." He just died at the age of 89. I'm sure that there are some folks out there who would say that he never worked a day in his life in the "productive economy," having spent his entire life serving the people of the United States of America.

I do disagree about how the military system of benefits stacks up to those available in the civilian sector. Yes, there are corporate folks who get excellent benefits, but most folks have already had their ox gored. No non-management worker in America gets a defined benefit pension after 20 years outside the government. The same is true for health care: in the civilian sector of the economy, most people have plans that pale in comparison to what government employees get.

Politically, this is a dog. Even though the proposal comes from a commission created by Rumsfeld, all active duty military and retirees will remember is that it happened on Obama's watch. Many military folks didn't realize that, when people in Washington talk about cutting entitlements, they are also talking about military benefits. I hope the president stands up for them.

[shanti]

47. a friend of mine will also

be triple dipping. he retired from the military after 20, now works for the state (he's now fully vested), and will also collect SS. he's already 62, so could totally retire at any time with three incomes. that's how you're supposed to do it, right? :shrug:

[sce56]

30. Welcome to DU MSG

We need more Vets to speak out against the cutting the Politicians are planning while protecting the crooks on Wall St. and K St.

[bongbong]

31. You got a choice

Either go for the GOP "Give Every Penny To The Billionaires" plan, or embrace the Democratic Party way where the American people are more than just consumers to sell foreign-made, GOP-passed-bill-subsidized, crap to.

[MADem]

45. I went in earlier than you, but the promises were the same.

Back then, the recruiters really could say anything!

[newspeak]

52. some of these corporations are no longer american

why should the american taxpayer pay for privatized corporate services that the military once performed for less cost and better quality. Soldiers care about their fellow soldiers, corporations only care about what profit they can make while doing the least service. Our government is handing out lucrative contracts to these global corporations and we are picking up the bill. I say, de-privatize some of the services once done by the military and quit squandering our money on shitty service and poor quality work provided by some corporations who have already made a "killing."

[MADem]

53. It has to do with the cost matrix. See, they don't care about the long view.

They go for the short term; for the baseline price.

It's easier to pay a corporation to do a "surge" job and then go away, then have to deal with the whole personnel mishmash and expense of keeping surge capabiity on the payroll on a permanent basis.

Don't shoot the messenger, now.

[fasttense]

22. Since when is a military retiree's health and pension benefits a "welfare system"?

Great spin on that.

These brave men and women risked their lives, their families, their mental health for people like 7 deferment Cheney and no-show bush, and now we call that welfare????

Losing limbs, minds and lives for our country is now considered welfare. Yet when GE pays 0 taxes and gets billions in a refund we call that good business?

I find this spin of risking your life in battle and considering it welfare to be beyond disgusting. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I guess the RepubliCON congress supports the troops only when they need them. When they are no longer of any use they kick them aside and force promised benefit cuts on them.

[hugo_from_TN]

35. It is welfare

From dictionary.com:
welfare - financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government.

The term 'welfare' does not in any way infer whether the people receiving it have earned it or not. In the case of the military, the recipients have certainly earned it.

[fasttense]

59. It is not financial assistance.

Is a pension welfare? Is a retirement welfare? Is retainer pay welfare? Is a paycheck to a government worker welfare? Is congressional pay welfare?

The courts consider military pensions to be retainer pay and will slice it up between the 2 partners if they divorce.

I've never heard of anyone's pensions or government paycheck considered welfare. Military members have earned these benefits by risking their lives, limbs and mental health.

Yes, welfare implies it is not earned or worked for. No where in your definition is earned through labor mentioned. It merely says assistance. So, the implication is clear.

[newfie11]

23. This is horrible

First the troops are sent to battles ( in places we should never have been) at the whim of folks sitting in a nice safe/clean office. Then they are sprayed with agent orange, sent back into battle tours 8 times or more come out with unbelievable injuries only to sit in a got forsaken va hospital. Oh and don't forget the use of them as ginny pigs with vaccines and nuclear fallout.

Now this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unfucking believable!!!!!!!!!!!

[A Physicist]

24. According to this article, military pensions are not included in the $700 billion defense budget:

“Other defense-related expenditures

This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

[tomg]

26. Why is it that they will go after

Benefits waaaaay before they go after research, weapons procurement, training and construction. Oh, because the first has an impact on average Americans who are serving their country and the second impacts on corporate profits.

Do I believe we have to reduce military spending. Damn straight. In fact, I am a registered conscientious objector, and damn proud of it. I also think we need a new GI bill for the men and women who - no matter whether I agree or disagree with the particular choice they made- are serving their community. Actually, I saw this coming about three months ago when I read in one of the Air Force publications that the Air Force was changing the terms of enlistment regarding pensions and doing a shift into private retirement funds.

This is to the military what Wisconsin is to other public employees.

[mistertrickster]

32. I KNEW it . . . to all the former military that monopolize my local paper's blog

with their reprints of Fox News and Rush O'Hannity, who all hate gov't programs EXCEPT for their own pensions which they "EARNED," I can only say "I told you so, you dumb CONs, I told you so."

[Blue_Tires]

33. WHY cut retiree benefits when there is 1000x the waste elsewhere in the Pentagon?

[MADem]

43. The ugly truth?

Those are the costs they can get their arms around--personnel costs. They're pretty cut and dried.
That's why they go after 'em--they're EASY and obvious.

The costs that get lost are in the procurement area--overruns, inventory losses, shit that falls off the truck, overcharges, etc.

Years ago, they did a wide ranging audit; and they came to the sad conclusion that there was something like two TRILLION dollars of shit they couldn't account for. That's just sloppy accounting--no excuse for it.

[Blue_Tires]

49. To be fair, $1 trillion of that amount was probably spent on

covert warfare and secret missions that don't officially exist:nuke:

[MADem]

54. No,no, no!!! We aren't talking about the "black ops" part of the

budget (who knows how much was wasted, there?)--we are talking about the public "DOD" budget, the money that went for equipment, MILCON, contracts, cost overruns....stuff like that.

The stuff they couldn't account for was along the lines of shit that fell off the truck--but on steroids.

[Blue_Tires]

50. To be fair, $1 trillion of that amount was probably spent on

covert warfare and secret missions that don't officially exist:nuke:

[shanti]

48. low hanging fruit n/t

[jwirr]

34. If President Obama supports this he will be making the same mistake

he made when he put the big 3 on the table. The rethugs will use it to convince veterans that he does not support them.

[sarcasmo]

36. Imagine, our government screwing it's veterans. This country has no Morals.

[CRK7376]

39. Two more years

until I hit my 20 years of active federal service. Don't screw this up now Congress. I've been Soldiering a long, long time, more than 32 years including Reserve and National Guard. I want my retirement in two years. Then I'll teach again....

[MADem]

44. MOAA has your back.

I'm betting you're safe, even if the people coming behind you have a less sanguine future.

[CRK7376]

46. I think so too

I'm just bellyaching and bitching about our lousy conress critters...especiallymine in NC, Virginia Foxx and Richard Burr.

[Vidar]

55. Time for another bonus march, but this time they should be sufficiently

well-armed to discourage any would-be-MacArthur from intervening.