Article

2011-08-20 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2011-08-20 11:23|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#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.

[Sark Off}

Posted by Besoeker 2011-08-20 11:45|| 2011-08-20 11:45|| Front Page Top

#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?

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-08-20 11:50|| 2011-08-20 11:50|| Front Page Top

#3 P2K,

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 2011-08-20 12:19|| 2011-08-20 12:19|| Front Page 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.

Posted by Glenmore 2011-08-20 12:26|| 2011-08-20 12:26|| Front Page Top

#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 2011-08-20 12:39|| 2011-08-20 12:39|| Front Page 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 2011-08-20 12:48|| 2011-08-20 12:48|| Front Page 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 2011-08-20 13:50|| 2011-08-20 13:50|| Front Page Top

#8 It strikes me that, with this Administration, the purpose of changing the retirement may be to encourage more people to quit.

Posted by Glenmore 2011-08-20 13:54|| 2011-08-20 13:54|| Front Page Top

#9 Old Patriot- very well said.
Thank you for your service to our country.

Posted by Dale 2011-08-20 13:58|| 2011-08-20 13:58|| Front Page Top

#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.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-08-20 14:16|| 2011-08-20 14:16|| Front Page Top

#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?

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-08-20 15:28|| 2011-08-20 15:28|| Front Page Top

#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.

Posted by rwv 2011-08-20 18:21|| 2011-08-20 18:21|| Front Page Top

#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 2011-08-20 19:57|| 2011-08-20 19:57|| Front Page 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.

Posted by Glenmore 2011-08-20 20:44|| 2011-08-20 20:44|| Front Page Top

23:39 Shakey Steve
23:36 newc
23:26 Mikey Hunt
23:18 newc
23:15 Silentbrick - Halliburton Lost Drill Bit Division
23:13 SteveS
23:08 newc
23:06 newc
23:06 Cromert
22:14 Procopius2k
21:53 Barbara
21:51 badanov
21:17 Redneck Jim
21:11 Redneck Jim
21:02 Bright Pebbles
20:58 Bright Pebbles
20:49 Frank G on the road
20:46 Bright Pebbles
20:44 Glenmore
20:15 Glenmore
20:09 Shakey Steve
19:57 Bill Griling5080
19:49 Bright Pebbles
19:09 DarthVader