Kinda old news, now, but the last paragraph sums it up.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The American Military has been slapped in the face by Paul Ryan and Patty Murray by their recent

budget that cost men and women who defend this country. They follow orders, they do their jobs where

others choose not to, they were made certain promises because of that service to their country.

 

They were let down.

 

The last paragraph, for those who won't bother to read the link, is a simple statement from a Navy SEAL

who quotes Calvin Coolidge: "The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten."

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/paul_ryan_vs_the_military.html

 

If there ever was evidence our country was on the decline, this is it. At least some of those in the

Republican Party used to keep that promise. Just not the likes of Paul Ryan. I understand better

why many didn't vote for Romney/Ryan, now. Maybe they knew this. I didn't.

 

[DaveTN]

Am I reading that article right, this is about a 1% cut in COLA?

[173rdABN]

Disabled and retired vets are being docked 1% in pay to save money, yes. But top brass is exempt and actually makes more money when they retire. Go figure, huh?

[Guest drv2fst]

We have to cut spending VERY deeply if we stand a chance at turning this country around.  Everywhere you cut the budget someone is going to feel the pain of that cut.  I agree with the author's point that there are other cuts that should have been made as well that weren't.  But cuts HAVE to be made EVERYWHERE, even some places where we don't like it.

 

I agree that our veterans are VERY deserving of their benefits but in the battle towards financial reform there can be nothing that is OFF LIMITS.  That is where we got where we are now, everyone agrees "cut spending, but not on my favorite line item".  Everything must be cut.

[Guest drv2fst]

Disabled and retired vets are being docked 1% in pay to save money, yes. But top brass is exempt and actually makes more money when they retire. Go figure, huh?

That kind of BS is typical of Washington DC.  I hate when they do that, increase spending on a few exempted groups some while cutting other benefits to the more ordinary classes.  It's like the exemptions that congress gets from Obamacare.  It's like they are saying "we know this law sucks but we don't have to suffer with it, so screw you average citizen".

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Cutting "ordinary folks" gives a bad taste in the mouth after having spent trillions to save the fortunes of investment bankers.

[jcoosi]

There are plenty of places to start cutting money before they even think about cutting vets/armed forces money. There is so much bs waste and spending within the government.

[wjh2657]

Don’t lump Defense Spending all in one package. A huge chunk of “Defense Spending” is “Corporate Welfare”, mainly contracts for airplanes the military doesn’t want, tanks that nobody wants and wars that should never be fought.  Lobbyists decide what will be procured and the military has little to do with it. The Defense Department right now is really the “Welfare Department for” for Corporations. They need to let the military sit down together and decide what they really need to defend our country. Then we can work out a Defense budget

I downloaded Paul Ryan’s budget from when he was running for VP. It is actually very simple:

We will take more money from the middle class and give it to our rich campaign contributors.

The Democrat’s budget was also very simple: We will take all of the Middle Class money and give it out in welfare and presents for our rich supporters.

 

FOX News and MSNBC both lied through their teeth as to what the budget was going to do. Nether budget would have lowered the debt, they were simply going to move money from programs favoring rich to favoring the poor or vice versa.

 

Don’t ever believe that either party is going to do anything for the working and middle class. The two party system has failed to govern and we need more, newer philosophies and parties. For right now the answer is simple: DON’T SEND ANYBODY BACK!

[bersaguy]

I would never support any cuts in any budget that effects our troops. Now with that said, I would support a budget that, Cuts all salaries of all Congress men and women by 15% across the board, I would support any budget cuts that cut 15%  to all Senators, across the board, I would support a budget that cuts of 15% the salaries of any and all aids to each one of the people listed above. I would support a budget cut to any and all free world contractors of 15%. I would support a budget cut of 25% to any and all lobbyists actively working inside Washington DC for elected offices. I would support a 15% cut in the budget of the Secret Service across the board. I would support a 50% cut in the budget of Air force 1 and 2 usage. I would support a budget cut of 25% for all the aids to the First Lady since for some reason she thinks she needs about 1000% more aids than any other first lady in Presidential history. I would support a budget cut of 25% for the people caring for the Presidents two mutts. I support closing down Camp David completely. Now just to recap anyone or anything I know I may have missed. Lets make it easy and cut every budget pertaining to any thing I know I missed by 25% that pertains to anything even remotely connected to the services of any operation in Washington DC that is in any way remotely connected to any one elected by the people and anyone connected to them. If they feel they can cut the salaries of the most important part of our Government which is our Military Then it is only fair that We the People introduce out own budget package. If it was not for our Great Military and the people in it all of those elected officials would not have a job because this Great Nation would not exist.............Some one mentioned that President Obama should ahve not signed that bill until the Military part was removed. That fact that the part about cutting the Military salaries was in their was the main reason he was thrilled to sign it because Obama hates our Soldiers and has not tried to hide that fact by his actions towards them................jmho

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Am I reading that article right, this is about a 1% cut in COLA?

That, plus the idea that they call things cuts in the budget when the budget continues to increase. It's the idea that they did it to that

group of people. Evidently, it is more than a one percent cut in some cases. More on the order of typical political speech.

Edited January 9, 2014 by 6.8 AR

[Guest TankerHC]

1% Cola cut is annual beginning in 2015. A SFC who retires next year, one of those who served multiple tours in Afghan and Iraq will lose upwards of $186,000 in retirement by age 62. Current retirees will lose upwards of 80,000 over 20 years. Its higher if you are E-8 or E-9. same with Officers. The BS numbers the Democrats are throwing out about the loss to a retired Captain are BS, anyone know how many people retire as a Captain? Few, and most of them are O-3E's.  VA Disability P&T for non retirees is not based on rank, it is based percentage of service connected disability. So that young Veteran who gave an arm and a leg, LITERALLY, will lose 1%..over time equating to close to $200,000 if rated 100% with Combat Related Special Compensation it will be higher. 

 

They saved 6 Billion, 1/10th of 1% of a budget that was spent a year before they even came up with it. They were able to save welfare payments to 12 million illegal aliens. Of course the Olmstead Construction Project is still included, that would be the project that was supposed to cost 775 million but is now up to 2.25 billion. I dont think Lamar Alexander and Mitch McConnell even wanted that 160 million or whatever it was included, that request supposedly came directly from Obama, Of course we couldnt leave out the $174,000 payment to the Widow of a Senator who already had a net worth of 60 million, because the Senate deems spending your money on "Senate Tradition" more important than spending it where it is needed. I wont even go on about pork, there are more earmarks in this bill than the money saved on the backs of Veterans. 

 

But that is OK, let Ryan call Veterans "Waste", let them do it. The Bills are flying now through the House, so far they have been shot down by the Dems. But it is OK because two things are occurring right now. 

 

1. In case anyone missed it, a previous Under Secretary of Defense was in an interview last week stating that one of the things the military is going to have to consider is the financial inability to sustain an all volunteer force, but we will still have to sustain the force, if it isnt volunteer, guess what it is. I wonder what people will begin saying about serving their country, whether they want to or not. Oh, and Draftees historically do not get paid what a volunteer gets paid, but since this 1% is OK, they wont have anything to complain about. If it happens, it is a very real possibility, it has been thrown around a bit for some time, now the talk is getting more serious. 

 

2. Veterans are organizing, and no one does organizing better than the military. The Republicans are scrambling for their political careers. They made their comments, now it's time to take responsibility for their actions and comments. The Democrats cannot back out. They also will be taking responsibility for their actions. The worst part for both sides is they didnt even grandfather in the current Active Duty members, they slammed everyone. Piss off 100 million gun owners and you still get new Gun laws, piss off 150 million Conservatives and you still get Socialists and Progressives elected, piss off 32 million Veterans and your going to get unemployed. They know it, but they figured it out too late.Yesterday Boehner and some others apologized saying they didnt read the Bill and didnt know that cuts to Veterans were in it. BS. Trying to save their azz. The Republicans cannot get past the Democrats, yet it was the Fiscal Conservative Ryan who helped perpetuate the welfare state on the backs of Veterans who were waste while taking earmarks himself. 

 

Good luck to those people in 10 months. 

Edited January 9, 2014 by TankerHC

[DaveTN]

1% Cola cut is annual beginning in 2015. A SFC who retires next year, one of those who served multiple tours in Afghan and Iraq will lose upwards of $186,000 in retirement by age 62. Current retirees will lose upwards of 80,000 over 20 years.

1% of COLA is $186,000? You are going to have to show your math. I don’t think 1% of the total retirement would be $186,000 for anyone; Officer or not.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

DaveTN, I think the process and the lies are where the difference is. The one percent part is more likely the part where someone

chose to put that in there to make everyone think it isn't so bad. The whole process is rotten to the core, especially when they come

out and expect us to forgive because they use the excuse that they didn't read the bill. That sucked when Pelosi et al used it the

first time, but this time it shouldn't fly. These people are criminals and we let them get away with it.

 

If Boehner said that he should resign.

[Guest TankerHC]

1% of COLA is $186,000? You are going to have to show your math. I don’t think 1% of the total retirement would be $186,000 for anyone; Officer or not.

 

It isnt 1% of cola, it is a reduction by 1% until age 62. 

 

"He says for military retirees under the age of 62, Congress wants to cut the annual cost of living increase in their paychecks by 1%.

So what does that mean in dollars and cents?

According to VFW estimates, a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy or a Sergeant First Class in the Army would lose between $70,000-80,000 in retirement pay between ages 40 and 62.

That’s when their retiree paychecks would finally start rising at the rate of inflation."

 

Many retirees are also disabled, those disabled Vets will be cut in both Retiree payments and Disability pensions. 140,000 to 160,000 over 22 years. 

 

A retired CSM, Major, LTC or Colonel will lose a whole lot more. 

 

Putting it simply, in 2015 your down 1% of COLA below the rise in inflation, 2016 2%, 2017 3% and so forth. At the same time increases in Welfare will continue to grow. That was the tradeoff the Fiscal Conservative made. Being a Fiscal Conservative, your not a Conservative and Ryan proved it. you think it was accidental Ryan was slected to work with Murray on this Bill? Ryan is from Wisconsin, a State with one of the lowest Veteran populations, about 563,000, no Major installations ad only one full time manned CG installation with about 300 people He was the least likely to take the hit. 

Edited January 10, 2014 by TankerHC

[DaveTN]

So what does that mean in dollars and cents?
According to VFW estimates, a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy or a Sergeant First Class in the Army would lose between $70,000-80,000 in retirement pay between ages 40 and 62.

80K over 22 years is about 3600 a year. If that is 1% of the total retirement they are making about $360,000 a year. I think I’m safe in saying a four star doesn’t get that much.
 

Many retirees are also disabled, those disabled Vets will be cut in both Retiree payments and Disability pensions.

I read a story that disability is paid by the VA and is unaffected by this. Is that not true?

[Mark@Sea]

Disability and COLA are two different things.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

80K over 22 years is about 3600 a year. If that is 1% of the total retirement they are making about $360,000 a year. I think I’m safe in saying a four star doesn’t get that much.

For year 0 thru 21-- Assuming 3 percent inflation, "what he would have made" in year 1 = pension * 1.03. What he makes missing 1 percent of cola = pension * 1.02. So a fella with a $10,000 pension would lose $100.

On year 2, "what he would have made" is pension * 1.03 * 1.03, and what he gets less 1 percent cola is pension * 1.02 * 1.02, so on the second year he loses about $205 on a $10,000 pension.

On year 10, he loses (1.03^10 - 1.02^10) so on initial pension of $10,000, he loses $1249.

On the last year 21, he loses (1.03^21 - 1.02^21) so the initial $10,000 pensioner loses $3446 the last year.

If you add up all the losses over year 0 thru 21, the TOTAL LOSS over the period is about $3.2378 per every dollar of initial annual pension PER YEAR.

The fella witn initial pension of $10,000 per year would have a total loss over the period of $32,378.

Therefore, at that rate, in order for a fella to have a total loss of $80,000, he would need an initial pension of (80,000 / 32,378) * $10,000 = $24,708 PER YEAR.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

On further consideration, I think this is an excellent cost saving strategy, as it will free up a lot more money to give to the investment bankers. :) Edited January 10, 2014 by Lester Weevils

[Jonnin]

We have to cut spending VERY deeply if we stand a chance at turning this country around.  Everywhere you cut the budget someone is going to feel the pain of that cut.  I agree with the author's point that there are other cuts that should have been made as well that weren't.  But cuts HAVE to be made EVERYWHERE, even some places where we don't like it.

 

I agree that our veterans are VERY deserving of their benefits but in the battle towards financial reform there can be nothing that is OFF LIMITS.  That is where we got where we are now, everyone agrees "cut spending, but not on my favorite line item".  Everything must be cut.

 

I agree but they started in the worst possible place here.  

Why not start by cutting foreign aid?  That alone would have saved multiple times the amount seen here.

 

Or, better yet, why not a % budget:  just take the 2010 or something budget,  compute the %s for each area, and then divide up 85% of tax revenue by those %s, and those departments get that much to spend and no more.  If it is not enough, well, maybe it can be stretched by spending wisely or something radical like that?    The other 15% will be held for emergencies and if not needed (for a legitimate war (invasion of us soil), or for a major event like katrina) it will be rolled into paying off the debt.   

[Kopis]

We have to cut spending VERY deeply if we stand a chance at turning this country around.  Everywhere you cut the budget someone is going to feel the pain of that cut.  I agree with the author's point that there are other cuts that should have been made as well that weren't.  But cuts HAVE to be made EVERYWHERE, even some places where we don't like it.
 
I agree that our veterans are VERY deserving of their benefits but in the battle towards financial reform there can be nothing that is OFF LIMITS.  That is where we got where we are now, everyone agrees "cut spending, but not on my favorite line item".  Everything must be cut.

This^.

when any group clamors over 1-2% in cuts, it's pretty obvious we're going to spend until the collapse just like Greece. Here in Memphis, MPD acted like their department was being gutted when the city cut $5.9m (2%) of their budget. They threatened to close precincts, not patrol after certain hours etc.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Inflation is evil, but OTOH the gov has got itself in such a bind it would go bust if it would deign to stop perpetual inflation.

Ferinstance if a pensioner gets $1000 a month that pays for rent, utilities and beans.

At 3 pct inflation, after 10 years the rent, utilities and beans cost $1344, but at 1 pct below inflation the pension is only $1219. So does the fella give up beans, utilities, or rent?

[Jonnin]

Inflation is evil, but OTOH the gov has got itself in such a bind it would go bust if it would deign to stop perpetual inflation.

Ferinstance if a pensioner gets $1000 a month that pays for rent, utilities and beans.

At 3 pct inflation, after 10 years the rent, utilities and beans cost $1344, but at 1 pct below inflation the pension is only $1219. So does the fella give up beans, utilities, or rent?

 

Inflation is neither good nor bad.   It helps people in debt, actually --- they owe less.  If I owed you $1000 today when a dollar is worth a dollar, and pay you tomorrow when a dollar is worth 75 cents, I win.   On the other hand, if I have $1000 in the bank, and tomorrow its worth 750, I lose.   So if inflation looms, go into debt :) (or, really, spend the decreasing value $$ on stable investments like gold etc).

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jonnin

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Inflation is neither good nor bad. It helps people in debt, actually --- they owe less. If I owed you $1000 today when a dollar is worth a dollar, and pay you tomorrow when a dollar is worth 75 cents, I win. On the other hand, if I have $1000 in the bank, and tomorrow its worth 750, I lose. So if inflation looms, go into debt :) (or, really, spend the decreasing value $$ on stable investments like gold etc).

It is a zero sum game assuming personal incomes track inflation. Which is increasingly not the case, for an increasingly large percentage of the population.

[Guest TankerHC]

80K over 22 years is about 3600 a year. If that is 1% of the total retirement they are making about $360,000 a year. I think I’m safe in saying a four star doesn’t get that much.
 

I read a story that disability is paid by the VA and is unaffected by this. Is that not true?

 

Your figuring it wrong. VA Pensions are paid out of the Defense Budget, same way as Retirees. The Bill put in disabled Vets and Retirees. The Bill the Democrats shot down last Friday would have re-instated Disabled Vets and left retirees on the hook. Both are still getting the reduction.

 

10 Pieces of Pork in the Trillion Dollar Omnibus Bill recommended to be cut by the Heritage Foundation Budget Expert., that were not, and it is not even the tip of the iceberg.

 

1. 3.1 Billion. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds “wasteful parochial projects, which include funding a pet-shampoo company and issuing risky business loans.”

 

2. 2 Billion. The Department of Education competitive grant programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) funds more than 60 projects, including an initiative that promotes Common Core national standards. Boccia says this is “an area regarded by tradition and law as a state and local matter.”

 

3. 1.6 Billion. Job Corps is a residential job-training program to serve disadvantaged youth, but according to Boccia’s research, it “has an abysmal record.” Job Corps participants were less likely to earn a high school diploma than non-participants in a control group. Participants in the program also worked fewer weeks and worked fewer hours per week than similar teens and tweens.

 

4. 1.5 Billion. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Food for Peace Title II grants require food to be purchased in the United States and then shipped across oceans in U.S.-flagged vessels, adding unnecessary logistical challenges to already-higher costs.

 

5. 800 Million. The Department of Transportation’s Transportation Alternatives Program funds community preservation projects like bicycle paths, sidewalks, and nature paths. Boccia argues “such projects are purely local matters.”

 

6. 730 Million. The Natural Resources Conservation Service runs this program to help private landowners maintain private land and teach them how to best use their land. Boccia says taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize advice on how to improve visual appearance.

 

7. 200 Million. The Department of Transportation Essential Air Service subsidizes the flights of rural passengers who opt for air travel when cheaper or unsubsidized travel alternatives. According to Boccia, any subsidies for these flights should come from the local or state level, which are benefitting from the service.

 

8. 120 Million. The Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing Program subsidizes activities leading to greater energy efficiency in American manufacturing processes – something Boccia believes companies should decide on their own to participate in.

 

9. 100 Million. The Rural Business Program Account deals with business and industry-guaranteed loans and rural business enterprise grants. This allows the federal government to play venture capitalist with taxpayer money.

 

10. 35 Million. Overseas Abortions. The United Nations Population Fund, funded in millions of taxpayer dollars, faces continued allegations that it has been complicit in China’s coercive one-child policy, which is often enforced through forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

Cuts: ZERO