Christie, who resembles Falstaff in girth and Jack Dempsey in pugnacity, is a visceral politician who thrives on conflict.
He relishes being America's Caesar -- its most powerful governor. He wields a line-item veto, he can revise spending numbers but only down (he blocked $1.3 billion in spending this year) and he can exercise a "conditional veto," rewriting legislation and sending it back to the Legislature for approval. The governor and the lieutenant governor, who run in tandem, are the only state officials elected statewide. The governor appoints the attorney general, treasurer, comptroller, all judges and all county prosecutors. The Chicago Machine should be proud!
The Democratic leader of the state Senate has been an ally. Head of the local ironworkers union, he understands how much private-sector union members resent paying the taxes that fund the perquisites of public-sector unions. And they've become more generous over the last ten years, when governments were flush, and taxes kept going up.
Christie was one of the first rocks on which Barack Obama's overrated political potency crashed. In 2009, Obama campaigned for Gov. Jon Corzine and against Christie in July, October and the Sunday before Christie won handily. No one outside of Washington has made more political waves in the past 20 months than Christie, and no one inside Washington has been as successful. Also four kids, aged 8-17.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/20/2011 11:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The Defense Business Board (motto: Business Excellence in Defense of the Nation), a panel of corporate types who advise the Pentagons civilian leadership, has trained its sights on a problem that urgently needs fixing: the military retirement system.
Didnt know it was broken? Well, a recent DBB study concludes that military benefits are more generous and expensive than those available in the private sector, and have therefore become unaffordable and unfair. Created back when military skills did not easily translate into civilian second careers, the system is also unnecessary, the study argues. And with retirees no longer dying as quickly as they once did, its inconvenient to boot. I've heard several times on the radio this week that these cuts would save $250 billion over 20 years. All the other cuts/expenses bandied about are over the next ten years. Wassamatter - $125 billion over ten years didn't sound big enough?
Conclusion:
Over the course of a decade, that all-volunteer force has proved to be astonishingly durable. With only 0.5 percent of Americans bearing the brunt of the nations seemingly interminable wars and with the rest of us largely insulated from wars effects politicians in Washington have had a free hand in deciding when and where that force will fight.
Now Washington is under pressure to trim the costs of maintaining that force. Rather than reforming which really means gutting the retirement system for the men and women who devote their lives to defending their country, we need to reform which really means rethinking the all-volunteer force and what we expect it to do.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/20/2011 11:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
military benefits are more generous and expensive than those available in the private sector, through unemployment insurance.
And with retirees no longer dying as quickly as they once did, it's inconvenient to boot.
But, but, but what about those enlistment promises of the 60's, and 90's regarding health care?
Pesky 0.5 percent of the American population plunging the entire country into financial ruin. Who KNEW? I for one blame Tricare, it is keeping us healthy and alive entirely too long.
Americans bearing the brunt of the nations seemingly interminable wars
Outsource it to Chinese Communist volunteer battalions. I hear they only eat two meals per day and work for $1.00 per hour.
#2
A little known factoid that the talking heads don't mention. Retirees are all subject to recall at the whim of the Secretary of the service. Whether you've been gone for three or five years, have reestablished yourself and family and are working for their future, tough. It's in the contract and law. You can be 60 or 70, and still be brought back to serve. Likely? But its there. How many other private and public retirement programs have that in their contracts?
Just a quick note - you're liable to DOD recall just until age 62. After that, it would pretty much take an act of Congress.
With that in mind, there is NOTHING wrong with the military retirement system, because no other profession (with the qualified exception of police and fire) requires you to die for your country if need be, and possibly do it up to twenty years after your retirement. Unfortunately, NO ONE will stand up for it, because it's easy to take out - when less than 1.75 percent of the constituency is involved, they just don't count. The one good thing that will come out of this is that it cuts down the arguments against cutting SSI and Medicwhatever by that much more.
Our nation should be ashamed of itself.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/20/2011 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's not entirely a bad idea - if DoD funded 401(k) retirement plans at an honest (actuarial) rate, military employees and retirees could control their own retirement, whereas public pensions of pretty much any kind seem prone to governmental 'redefinitions' and imaginary accounting tricks.
#5
IMHO - nobody goes into the military for the extravagant pay scale. They do it for service to the Country and possibly to get job-training. Putting in 20 for 1/2 of their relatively meager wages (compared to jobs with similar responsibilities in the private sector) seems like a good contract for both sides.
Posted by: Frank G on the road ||
08/20/2011 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Glen,
If only it would work that way. I would bet MY retirement check that a military 401K plan would be a horror show of cronyism and corruption, and it would be no time at all before its monies were being raided for the pet projects of the Princes of Capitol Hill.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/20/2011 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I spent 26 years in the Air Force. During that time, I worked up to 38 hours at a shift, hundreds of days of 12-15 hour shifts, holidays and weekends (once worked 52 days in a row, NOT in a "war zone"), and have had my days of being shot at (unusual for the Air Force, unless you're aircrew). My paycheck never changed, except when I was physically IN a war zone, and that was because Congress thought it was a good idea. Thanks to the idiocy of "up or out", I had no choice to stay longer, and due to my health (which was seriously compromised during my military service), wasn't physically able to stay longer.
I know of no other job on this earth, including police and firefighting, that ROUTINELY EXPECTS such activities from its members, subjects them to involuntary recall in case of war or national emergency, nor places them under military judicial judgment until DEATH for some actions. Military retirement is unique because military service is unique. That uniqueness, and the very stringent requirements for earning that retirement, fully justify it. The bean-counters don't experience that life, so they don't understand it, nor see the justification for the military's unique and absolutely necessary retirement system.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/20/2011 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
It strikes me that, with this Administration, the purpose of changing the retirement may be to encourage more people to quit.
#10
A good alternative could result in major savings but without sticking it to veterans.
Right now, usually senior officers laterally transfer on or even before retirement to GS jobs. This is called "double dipping" as the both get their full retirement and full pay, and full seniority.
However, if that system is opened up, so all GS jobs have hiring preferences to veterans, while the double dippers would no longer get full everything, they would still have a full time job and increasing seniority. Like they never left the military, but no longer have to do PT.
And more importantly, those who left before retirement would greatly improve the quality of the federal bureaucracy. The deal for many of them would be so good that they would be foolish to go for ordinary civilian jobs.
Comparatively, Obama has just announced hiring preferences for the bureaucracy of less capable and less educated minorities, out of the idea of "fairness", or some nonsense like that.
#11
I was around in the 80s and early 90s and the retirement law at the time hammered retired military for about half their retirement pay if they went back to work for the government. The problem was that the government needed people with skills and experience that these people had, but because they were being penalized for the 'double dipping', they wouldn't take the government GS rated jobs. So, DoD ended up contracting the jobs out. The contractors hired the retirees at a pay about or more than the government GS pay rates and then added its overhead which in contracting parlance usually meant about 100 percent in value. Now before you go blowing a gasket over that, understand that's how the national laboratories (Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, etc) were set up. Unable to attract talent at the government rates, the function is contracted out and run by universities with competitive pay to attract talent. Someone figured by the mid-90s that the government was overpaying for the skills, so they quietly chucked the 'double dip' penalty. However, you can always bring it back.
Now if they want to look for savings, we have as many national laboratories today as when we had the vast defense establishment in the 60s and 70s, when the Army was twice the size it is today. Those laboratories were originally set up for national defense. They're being kept alive today mainly as welfare for the gifted and pork for their states and Congress. Do we really need as many today?
#12
One of the primary differences between the military and civilian employment is that it is a young person's game. No civilian job forces you to look for new employment after 20 years, essentially starting over at 40. Granted, depending on your rank, you can stay longer, but think about trying to switch careers at 50 or 55. Some can, but for most, the retirement pay and perks provide the needed buffer to avoid descent into penury.
#13
If this is such a great idea, why doesn't Congress set an example by switching their and their staffers pensions over to this plan?
Posted by: Bill Griling5080 ||
08/20/2011 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Bill Grill: why doesn't Congress set an example
Amen! Or better still, don't even have penions, and find a way to earn an honest living at some point in their lives.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
