WTF is happening in Congress . . .

They are now shaken.

They are now shaken by the Earthquake.

 

1,137,568 - number of people serving active in the US Armed forces as of December 2009.
467,587 - number of people serving in reserve units as of December 2009.
307,006,550 - population of the United States as of December 2009.
approx. 30% of the United States Population is eligible to enlist based on age based on 2009 demographic data.
Less than one half of one percent actually serve.

So I'm posting this because of commentary up thread that got some distance out of the House of Representatives consisting of 25% vets and the Senate having approximately 50% vets. If one-half of one percent of the population or an adjusted 1.7% by generation actually serve.. who would you want to vote on pension reform out of your available options?

Now in terms of pension reform:

1. Give those who are injured or disabled in service the ability to either pull their pension early or reinvest.
2. Give spec ops operators who were actually deployed the same right.
3. Give everyone else the option to reinvest their pensions at retirement and pull them the same as every other Federal pension: At 20 years service with minimum age of 62 years of age. For the record, I'm including medical benefits in the same lump unless whatever medical conditions are combat or service related.

Personal Bio:
- First generation of 8 to not be in active military service. Still don't know what to do with myself. (though I've adapted well by anyone's standards) I'm medically DQ for service.
- Grew up in a military family on bases and spent 6 years in a military school growing up.
- I'm pro military and tend more towards republican than democratic policies. However, the Teahadists need to shut up.
- The concept of "Political Suicide" only exists in a society where career politicians exist.. that's the problem.

Not a big fan of what I'm seeing in the thread, if only because it shows that educated people are falling subject to the same stupid stuff everyone else is. No one is entitled to anything. Contracts don't mean anything. Be self-sufficient, expect to be screwed, and be happy/grateful when things work out the way you expect. Like all weather, sometimes the tide changes and when it does everyone needs to adapt.

 

"approx. 30% of the United States Population is eligible to enlist based on age based on 2009 demographic data.
Less than one half of one percent actually serve."


This family is doing its part to keep participation up! As one of five siblings that served in the military (some for over 25 years), and father of a gulf war veteran; I feel that if the retirement system is to be changed…..change it for newcomers, but pay and current benefits will need to be adjusted upward. Otherwise that may just be the changes that bring back the draft :ugh1:

 

I agree with you. There is a lot of hypocrisy with this argument on reducing military retirements. The same people (both parties) who are advocating the need to change military retirements based on the new fiscal realities even though it violates what was promised to these people when they signed up are the same ones who shout that other entitlements (medicare, medicaid, and SSI) should be off the table because these were promises made. These same people who are advocating for a private sector 401K-type solution for servicemembers rather than a gov. retirement are the same ones who cried bloody-murder when a similar approach was suggested for SSI.

They can't have it both ways and expect to remain credible. Entitlement reform on all sources of federal benefits needs to be conducted in order to reduce expenditures and get the budget in line with revenue.

Career politicians - so many problems could be solved or eliminated if there were term limits on federal elected officials. Can you imagine if poll numbers were no longer the basis for decisions? If lobbyists could only expect their efforts to be rewarded for a limited period rather than over a 30 year career?

 

@ SteveFoerster- I disagree. Going into the military is a huge risk to one's life. If people commit to that risk and see it through for 20 years, then they should get their just rewards; regardless of whether they have lost a limb, or suffered another injury.

 

What would I like it to be? How about a 20% cut across the board? 20% off of Medicare/Medicaid, 20% off of Social Security, and 20% off of DoD. First cuts should always begin with those who do not contribute. A military person puts their life on the line, whether they drive a truck or kick in doors. A welfare, SSI disability leech does not put their life on the line and they have a true entitlement. One which they've usually done nothing to "earn". Cut them first. "Help the helpless, forget the clueless".

Then cut me and my military brethren. If cutting the military is the will of the people, then so be it.

Retirement will not change for those already serving. It might change in some future date for future enlistee's, but they will grandfather in those of us already serving. Things need to change. The military, as large as it is right now, can be smaller. It will get smaller (and if fact already has). I've not seen reductions in other entitlement programs as of yet.

Yes, you are allowed to criticize the military and call for cuts. We have an awesome country where people can have differing opinions and not be crucified for those opinions. I hope, in the future, you'll pay me this same respect when we don't agree on things and we do not disagree in DoD spending, it should be cut (already has been and will continue to be).

 

“…25% of U.S. senators and 21.6% of U.S. representatives had served at least some period in military uniform (active duty, Guard, or Reserve).” Not 25% (Congress) and approximately 50% (Senate) respectively as you’ve incorrectly referenced …

Don’t mean anything to whom? Fulfilling /honoring a contract are both relevant and reliant on someone’s word /their bond.

 

Blank Check

wned: Since less than 0.5% of our eligible citizens choose to serve in the military, it may be worth reminding the 99.5% that do not serve just what the Enlistment Oath requires of the enlistee. Very similar oaths apply to warrant officers and commissioned officers.

Enlistment Oath: I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

This is a blank check! An enlistee really does not know if the are going to be a clerk, driver, shooter or something else in spite of what the recruiter said. Recruiters fill quotas, and may not be very upfront with the real range of possibilities.

In my case, after declining a chance for B-52 navigator training because I really did not want to fly, I signed up for silo missile duty. After one and a half year of training, I wound up in B-52s as an ‘in-flight’ cruise missile analyst. This came with hazardous duty pay, but not flight pay, because I was a non-crew member.

Remember the blank check is signed!