You know what?
The conversation I had with Ridgefield Barbie during her corrupt appointment process to her worthless tenure in the state House that confirmed to me she is unfit to serve in government at any level, let alone as a member of congress was where she confirmed to me that he absence from the district she'd cared nothing about for the prior 11 years was the "same thing as serving in the military."
No Babs... it isn't.
Multiple internships, a long stretch on the DC party circuit, 4 years at the U-Dub (Oddly, I also attended the UDub and save my ROTC classes, found it in no way resembling the military) a few weeks as an intern for Zarelli and a bottom of the totem poll coffee chaser for McMorris Rogers in no way resembled service to this country.
It was in no conceivable way, "the same thing."
But it might soon become that sort of thing if the moron running the show gets his way.
Efforts are underway to marginalize the sacrifice, the effort, the blood of those who they will want to serve in future wars.
Efforts are underway to make military retirement almost exactly the same thing as any civilian job.
That is not to say that Obama doesn't have the RIGHT to screw the troops. Hell, they're screwing us and we're not even serving.
But when our young people enlist in the military, we are asking them to put their lives on the line for us. We're demanding they put their lives on hold for us. We're demanding separation and heartbreak from their families.
And in Obama's stilted world, a 401K is the best we can do for them.
The recent delusional changes concerning gays in the military will keep people out in droves as the Armed Forces becomes yet another gays club. Add this effort to marginalize and belittle the sacrifice of those who are putting their asses on the line is just another step in the effort to realize Ridgefield Barbie's dream... her dream of making an extended, decade-long absence from a district you now know nothing about but want to represent so very badly.... "the same thing as serving in the military."
Well, good luck with that.
Lawmakers may revamp military retired pay
Two cuts in military retired pay are under discussion as part of negotiations between Congress and the White House over the size of the U.S. national debt, but getting an agreement is proving difficult.
One cut is small, involving how annual cost-of-living adjustments are calculated. It could apply to military and federal civilian retirees, disabled veterans and survivors. The net effect would be annual adjustments that average one-quarter of a percentage point below what they would be with the current formula.
The second option involves a complete overhaul of the benefit, replacing a 20-year program that pays immediate benefits with a new plan that could provide some retirement benefits for as few as five years of service -- with payments not starting until at least age 60 for any service members who do not retire on a full military disability.
As it stands, this proposal would apply only to future troops, not current retirees or anyone already in uniform.
The talks come as the U.S. has run out of borrowing power after reaching its current $14.3 trillion debt limit. The Treasury Department has warned the U.S. will run out of cash reserves to pay bills Aug. 2, which has become the deadline for reaching an agreement.
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky met with Republican colleagues June 21 and later said he expects a "large package" of spending cuts that includes short-term reductions in spending by federal agencies over two years, as well as bigger cuts in entitlement programs over 10 years.
He did not offer specifics, but entitlements include government retirement benefits and veterans' benefits, which is why they are under scrutiny at the same time as more well-known programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The proposed change to the annual cost-of-living adjustment in retired pay would save $24 billion over 10 years, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The change would stop linking annual COLAs for benefits and retired pay to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners. Instead it would be linked to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
The past two years have seen no cost-of-living increase in retired pay because of flat consumer prices. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks prices, is reporting a 3.6 percent overall increase in the CPI-U in the past 12 months.
The CPI-W has increased 4.1 percent over the same period, half a percentage point more.
A complete overhaul of military retired pay would pay immediate annuities only to those who receive military medical retirement. For everyone else, retired pay would not begin until age 60 — or possibly older.
The Pentagon has been pushing for this kind of retired pay overhaul since Donald Rumsfeld was in charge, but finding support among the services and key lawmakers for such a change has been tough.
"About 70 to 80 percent of our force does not stay in the service long enough to retire, but they leave with nothing," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this month. "That doesn't make any sense. The private sector is well ahead of us in that respect."
Second, he said, is the 20-year retirement model that encourages people to leave when the military wants some to stay.
"We make it financially silly for them not to retire at 20 years," Gates said, adding that the military needs to "incentivize them to give us another five years of service."
The stupidity of believing that any "savings" would translate to more money for weapons systems and the like is just that: stupidity. Here's a memo to the Department of Defense:The Pentagon has not provided an estimate of how much this concept might save, but the immediate effect would be small because current members would be exempt.
YOU will not be allowed to keep any money you screw the troops out of.
And that you can't see that is... frankly... astounding.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment