Pension Reform – Will the Military Show the Way?

Posted by Tina

Americans have always been able to count on our military to keep us safe. It might be that we can also count on them to save our federal budgets! A new proposal shows they are willing to take the lead in needed reform of government entitlement and retirement programs. The plan as it stands now would be available to all service members at retirement age. Its estimated that it would save the government $250 billion over 20 years:

CBS News

The proposal comes from an influential panel of military advisors called the Defense Business Board. Their plan, laid out in a 24-page presentation “Modernizing the Military Retirement System,” 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. ** It would save $250 billion dollars over 20 years.

The proposal still needs some tweaking and congressional approval but if they manage to make these changes perhaps it will pave the way for Social Security reform. I’m not at all surprised that a body known for honor and discipline would roll up their sleeves and just get the job done!

At least somebody in government is looking out for the interests of the American people.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Pension Reform – Will the Military Show the Way?

  1. Libby says:

    You need to read George McGovern’s letter to the Pres in the latest Harpers … but you won’t.

    It’s not epic, but it’s interesting.

  2. Quentin Colgan says:

    250 billion over 20 years?
    Chicken feed.
    We don’t need to reform Social Security. We need to quit stealing from it to pay for war.

  3. Mary Carlisle says:

    Amen to Quintin’s comment.

  4. Post Scripts says:

    Q, speaking of war costs the latest news I have is that somehow the accounting for the costs is so confused nobody knows for sure exactly how much we’ve really spent on the Iraq war. My guess is we could have given $10k to every Iraqi to go improve their lives as they see fit, and we could have packed up and gone home 5 years ago and still be money ahead…not to mention lives and they would have been better off too. I’m not advocating giving away money…I’m just saying by comparison this would probably have been better for all concerned.

    Iraq was in my humble opinion a mistake. We can debate over whether or not they did this or did that or whatever, but in the final analysis the question is, was it worth it to go to war? As of right now, history is not on the side of war. Seems to me we would have been better off not to be the world’s policeman on this one, and let destiny play out. And please, don’t get me wrong, I am in no way defending the thugs that ran Iraq, but I am saying we would probably be no worse off today and a whole lot richer, and have a whole lot more young soldiers alive and well, if we had stayed out of it.

  5. Tina says:

    We all get it Quentin…you hate war.

    Defense of the nation is mandated in the Constitution.

    Social spending is not mandated in the Constitution.

    We do need to reform SS. Even if we never borrowed to go to war again (in this world, yeah right!) the SS program would be unsustainable.

    Mioney for other programs and pork are also paid for with SS funds

    As I wrote in another post, “the cost of the Iraq war from 2003-2008 — when Bush was in office — was $20 billion less (chicken feed?) than the cost of education spending. It was less than a quarter (chicken feed?) of the cost of Medicare spending.” It was similarly less than SS spending. Pork spending over eight years under Bush was $170 Billion. If we eliminated Waste and fraud in the Medicare program and eliminated pork spending we could fund wars with the savings.

    In 2009 pork spending was still high at $14.8 billion. Nothing has changed under Obama…in fact he has increased spending, and particularly social spending. He has created another unsustainable program.

    At least the Pentagon is doing something in the right direction…THIS PRESIDENT IS NOT!!!!!

  6. Tina says:

    Jack: “in the final analysis the question is, was it worth it to go to war?”

    It certainly isn’t when the next administrations are unwilling to complete the final mission, maintaining the force and leadership necessary to support growth and stability (in Iraq). The current administrration basically abandonded the country (the remaining forces were left in place reluctantly and leadership support is absent…attention was shifted to appeasing Iran, making overatures to militant elements, and increasing military activity in Afghanistan (worth it?)…and Lybia? This administration featured itself as just the ticket for ushering in a peaceful transition to social democracy. Without a big stick leader the ME would never respect the efforts enough to follow. The ME is a dangerous mess, growing ever more threatening to the US thanks to this administration’s abandonment and failure of leadership.

    I wish there were easy answers. I wish it were possible to simply stay out of ME affairs. I hate war…I hate poorly led war even more. We can pull out and save American lives. Then the question becomes, what do we do when the next big attack comes?

    We will not have any sense of security as long as the ME is filled with maniacs bent on destroying the West and Israel. Does live and let live do anything to deter the maniacs? They bombed the trade center and we did next to nothing, The next attack was a bit more spectacular. The President said yesterday he is most worried about a “lone wolf”…with a nuclear or biological? Probably. So we’re back to waiting for the next shoe to drop…and Americans will bleed and die anyway.

    One way or the other we’re stuck.

  7. Post Scripts says:

    Tina: Well, we’re at risk one way or the other I agree, but are we really stuck? I hope that’s not the case, because I like to think we have good options that can protect us and minimize the impact if an attack is successful. If I could select a team of people I know and give us a budget of less than a million dollars we could provide real solutions at a fraction of what we’re currently spending on security.

    Let me show you one big example of how not to handle counter terrorism: Homeland Security.

    If it was never invented and we never spent a nickel on improved lighting at county fairs, or paying for parking barriers at podunk airports, or reward money for the child porn tip line (yes Homeland spent money that way), think how much better off we would be at least financially. Almost all of the stupid things Homeland has spent money on were somehow justified in the name of security and counter-terrorism. It boggles the mind to know how bad this is.

    This whole Homeland spending madness and the massive addition to government bureaucracy has been one of the most wasteful, unproductive efforts in our history or anyone else’s for that matter. It was nothing more than an attempt to placate the nervous Nellies in Congress that felt we had to do something when just the opposite might have been a 1000 times better.

  8. Tina says:

    Jack I agree abour homeland security. Given the big impact of 9/11 I can understand the thinking for creating a homeland security system of some kind. the problem with big federal programs and departments, though, is they never go away and they always contain waste. I still like the idea of sundowning programs so they can be evaluated for bang on the buck. they should end when costs aren’t critically justified. In hindsight it probably wasn’t necessary, at least in the form we constructed.

    Live and learn should be the rule…usually we live and refuse to learn!

  9. Quentin Colgan says:

    “Defense of the nation is mandated in the constitution.”
    Correct! Defense of AMERICA is mandated by the Constitution. Nation building is not.

    “Social spending is not mandated in the Constitution.”
    No, it isn’t.
    I don’t believe you will be able to convince your readers that you are sincere in your desire to just give up the 15% of your lifetime income, so the fascists can spend even MORE on nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    We get it, Tina. You’re working for Bob Mulholland!

    I would just like to say to anyone else who may be reading this: Tina does NOT speak for conservatives!!!!
    She is playing Poe.

  10. Post Scripts says:

    Quentin, 25b is peanuts? Well just remember, every that every little billion saved, adds up and then we’re talking some serious money!

  11. Tony says:

    I’d be willing to bet that the influencial military advisors with the Defense Business Board are a bunch of over paid Wage Grade civilians. Let the slugs in Congress take a cut in their pensions. You’d get plenty of money then. Let’s quit sending money to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Let’s quit sending money to all the Muslim majority countries that hate us. I agree with the proposal above to defund Homeland Security. Disband the ATF, they are redundant and provide dubious service anyway. I did my 20+ years and I earned my retirement. Don’t cut it unless Congress cuts theirs first and ties any increase in their benefits with military benefits.

  12. Quentin Colgan says:

    250b over 25 years?
    We spent 250b in about 9 months in Iraq.
    Like I said
    peanuts

  13. Tina says:

    Q: ” Nation building is not.”

    Nation building for the sake of nation building or imperialist takeover is, of course, not constituionally mandated.

    Iraq was a strategic decision in a world wide operation against an enemy of America.

    I know, you think it was a bad mistake or a wrong move. You are entitled to your opinion, however, nobody elected you to the presidency….TWICE! Therefore it was not your decision to make. better luck next time.

    “I don’t believe you will be able to convince your readers that you are sincere in your desire to just give up the 15% of your lifetime income, so the fascists can spend even MORE on nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    How about we let our readers speak for themselves…they don’t need your voice rattling around in their brains!

    I don’t pretend that if someone would just listen to me the world would work perfectly as Q does. In fact I have often said I am not an expert of any kind. I post things and I invite all of our friends here to discuss them. Most of us have a fairly decent time and even though we sometimes engage in contentious arguemnts I’m pretty clear that we remain friends. Most of us. You never seem to fit in to that category and I think that is a shame.

    I know that our leaders are at loggerheads all the time. The founders created the system to work just this way. Getting things changed, especially getting cuts in programs and spending, is difficult if not impossible. Wrestling the beast that our government has become to the ground is nearly impossible. The one thing that would make a difference is a nearly united American people demanding cuts in the size of government. That is why I blog. I have always been against waste and bureaucracy. I have advocated for cuts across the board. I agree that a spending freeze for several years would force better management of our tax dollars and a more concerted effort to eliminate useless departments, LIKE HOMELAND SECURITY!

    “Tina does NOT speak for conservatives!!!!

    I don’t speak for anyone but myself. I consider myself a conservative. I fit the profile well…including the love and compassion I have for my fellow citizens and people everywhere and the love I have for my country.

    Quentin you just keep acting as you are…it’s so incredibly endearing. I’m sure that people are flocking to your blog just to be in the presence of someone with such amazing wisdom who delivers his castigations with such warmth and grace. Has anyone yet offered to wash your feet?

  14. Tina says:

    Tony: ” I did my 20+ years and I earned my retirement. Don’t cut it unless Congress cuts theirs first and ties any increase in their benefits with military benefits.”

    Good idea…it was the point of this post. I was saying that it didn’t surprise me that the military would lead the way toward reform.

    We all know government has to change the way they manage our tax dollars. We all know that pork, feather bedding, waste and bureaucracy needs to be slashed and eliminated.

    I would support leaving those already on military pension in the old system (unless there was an equitable way to switch to a private investment and it was optional) and making changes to future beneficiaries.

    I support and appreciate our military. Thank you for your service, Tony.

  15. flubber says:

    The only way to kill these wars is to cripple those that perpetuate them. Thank you for your service even though you are nothing but suckers for the lie.

  16. LiberalGuy says:

    If you really support the military, then keep supporting the current retirement system.

    Having an actual retirement pay, based on a retired soldier getting a percentage of his active pay, is a much better deal for the soldier than some bogus 401k plan that is just designed to give that retirement money to some Wall Street money guy to use and try to make more money. Don’t gamble with the soldier’s retirement money.

    Pretty much anybody would prefer a straight up, old fashioned pension (like the military currently has) to some 401k, stock market based ‘retirement fund’.

    I’m fine with giving the soldiers the option to choose a 401k over what they currently have, but don’t force it on them.

  17. Tina says:

    LiberalGuy, I’m afraid we the people, by demanding more and bigger government services which our legisaltors have been only too happy to give us, have created an unsustanable beast that will require reforming entitlement programs, eliminating departments and yes, finding alternative ways to ensure that those who serve have retirement pensions.

    “…some bogus 401k plan that is just designed to give that retirement money to some Wall Street money guy to use and try to make more money…”

    Statistically over the years returns for investment to the holders of 401K’s (even considering downturns) has been positive. Brokers gets make money for keeping an eye on your investment (something you are usually unqualified to do) but obviously not so much that it deters investors. Companies that are traded on Wall Street represent employment opportunities in the private sector. That means people get to eat and pay the taxes that fund your pension. Without orivate workers and investors who would pay for your pension? And why all the hostility?

    Too bad we weren’t smarter about the opportunity we were given. Can you imagine where we might be had we done things in such a way that most of our citizens were contributing, self sustaining, productive, and creative instead of dependent, dysfunctional, addicted, and whiny? Heck…we could probably even afford a top notch military.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.