The Western Word is visited each week by several military retirees, veterans, and their families, so when I happened to read something that might harm a fellow veteran; I have to shine a light on it.
This story (below) was reported last night on CBS Evening News by Sharyl Attkisson and it’s important to military retirees, those who are in the military, and those who might decide to join the military. Read on…
CBS News “reports high-level, closely-held meetings are taking place at the Pentagon regarding a radical proposal to overhaul retirement for the nation’s 1.4 million service members.”
The plan “would eliminate the familiar system under which anyone who serves 20 years is eligible for retirement at half their salary. Instead, they’d get a 401k-style plan with government contributions. They’d have to wait until normal retirement age…”
The first thought I had was, “Have they gone freaking nuts at the Pentagon?” You can read the whole story for yourself HERE.
I also thought, “What is the Obama Administration thinking,” and that this “will harm the President politically in 2012.” I don’t think 401k plans are doing that well these days, either.
We all remember that the Obama Administration came forward with an idea in 2009 to bill a veterans’ private insurance for treatment of their combat injuries and other service-connected injuries. They said this plan would save the government over $500 million per year. Veterans and military retirees vote – and after there was an outcry from us, they Obama Administration dropped the proposal. This plan to change the military retirement system needs to be flushed down the toilet, too.
Veterans and military retirees must keep an eye on the current administration – they don’t seem to have our best interests in their minds.
I’ve heard that the folks on the panel recommending this plan are civilians – and they apparently have no idea about being in the military – or the sacrifices and the toll being in the military takes on a family, not to mention to the person who serves.
Military retirees use their retirement to help them start a new career – to have something to fall back on while they attend college or some sort of schooling to change careers. It would be detrimental to retirees and their families if they had to wait until normal retirement age to get their benefits. Many retirees are between the ages of 38-45 years old and have families to support while they are changing careers. Some have prepared themselves financially by the time they retire to live on just their military retirement pay.
If this plan is approved, I see a drastic decline coming in the number of people entering the military – which could end up harming the military like the early retirement and the downsizing severance packages did back in the early 1990s. The mid-level folks who left the military in the early 90s under these plans left a void as they would have been in senior leadership positions in the early 2000s.
Officials at the Pentagon contend this plan, “…would save $250 billion dollars over 20 years.” I can think of several ways to save billions of dollars without sticking it to our military men and women. One idea would be to close several overseas military bases – I’m thinking we only need one or two “super bases” per continent – plus we can consolidate National Guard and active duty military bases in the United States.
An unscientific poll on the CBS News website shows that about 75% (at the time of posting this column) want the United States to continue offering 20-year pensions.
Right now this plan is being put forth by the Obama Administration – but a call to your elected officials would help (there’s no way any elected official in their right mind would support this).
Jack (the blogger) Brown is a military veteran. Follow his independent commentary on Twitter @TheWesternWord
The Western Word 
I actually think it’s not a bad idea to consider some changes to the current system. The “all or nothing” approach leaves a lot to be desired, IMO.
Some changes might be OK, but military personnel should have a seat at the table from the beginning.
If someone like myself does 30 years as I am doing right now – had served faithfully and always did what my contract stated, then I should be given what was in my original contract. What people seem to forget when they state – well the civilian community – were not the civilian community – were military people who don’t get overtime, holidays etc off. We do what were told when were told…if this is the case, maybe we should ask for a new contract to work for – and quit when we want then. Sounds real good to most – but after three major one year tours away from my wife and kids, 12 six month deployments and a lot of missing of family time…why should I know be screwed because they can’t or won’t push for a balance amendment to the budget. Not right or fair.
The PAC is probably the most likely concept that would be effective here. With nearly 1 in10 Montana’ns either a retiree or a veteran we might be able to apply some pressure in Helena. If nothing else, we could work to get common sense candidates elected to national seats that understand the big picture on the security of the nation and the role veterans have played. I found 50 cents in my desk drawer to get us started. RR
RR – We’re on our way….
Maybe we should form a Veterans Party. Think there is enough of us to get their attention. RR
Heck yes…start in Montana and then go national.
I know where to get a great campaign coach. I just got to figure out how to raise a million bucks to get started. I am curious what the response would be to a real “vet party”. You could conduct a straw poll of your readers and see if we could get some interest. RR
Thanks…that million bucks part IS the tough part – and getting recognized in Montana as a political party (beside being a “D” or “R” is almost impossible. Maybe us Veterans could start a Political Action Committee (PAC)? Money seems to get attention from the elected officials…
I feel there is a grave mistake about to be comitted if this is allowed to go through. With an all volunteer military, the trade off of risking one’s life for 20 or more years for the opportunity to earn a retirement afterward has been a resonable risk for those who have choosen to serve a full career. Now, the “socialist” are looking for any way to cut anything but their pet entitlements. The world is not a kinder, gentler, or even safer place. Actions like this will put America back to where we were before WWII, ineffective and unable to be involved on the world stage. I hope somebody with vision and insight see’s the reality and stops this before it really can do any harm. RR
Good points RR – one would have thought the Obama Administration would have learned from the attempt to make veterans use personal insurance for service-connected injuries that America loves, respects and honors veterans and military retirees. Maybe not. -Jack