“Under the bill, federal agencies such as the Defense Department would avoid about $62 billion in automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, over two years. It would be paid for in part by scaling back pensions for working-age military retirees. “This bill is a firm step in the right direction,” Rep. Paul Ryan.”
Here’s the deal. When it comes to government ‘benefits,’ there are EARNED benefits, and UNEARNED benefits. The military, and in this case ESPECIALLY the retirees, EARNED their benefits (and then some) by voluntarily sacrificing years of their lives, risking their lives, and giving up their health and families in some cases. They EARNED their benefits providing one of the FEW things the government is CONSTITUTIONALLY bound to provide, which is national defense.
Welfare recipients, those getting ‘free’ Obamaphones, those who riot when their EBT isn’t loaded on time, those who get back more in refunds and benefits than the taxes they pay in are receiving UNEARNED benefits. And you fools pretending to lead this nation start cutting where?
So, Paul Ryan, what you are telling me is the you, John Boehner, and all the other (R)epublicans who support this bill, that you support and value the dependent recipient over the provider. You support those who take and consume that which they did not earn and do not deserve over those who create, earn, and provide. You support those who are eroding this nation from within over those who defend it from external threats. Noted.
This bill DOES. NOT. CUT. SPENDING. You are playing games. It only cuts PROPOSED spending years down the road. Here is what your plan does. If you spent $75 million last year, and you PROPOSED to spend $100 million next year, but you actually spend $80 million, you are claiming to have ‘cut spending’ by $20 million when in fact you have INCREASED spending by $5 million. And to make what you, the rest of the progressive (R)epublicans, and the democrats are doing even worse, you then claim that $20 million in fake savings is now available to spend on other things. NO. The only numbers that matter in this debate is the amount of money the government takes in, and the amount it spends, and the difference between the two.
You beat your chest and proclaim that this bill cuts $2.3 billion per year over 10 years. You do realize that the government is PRINTING on average $2.8 billion EVER SINGLE DAY, right? And as you kick the can down the road, you are attempting to obligate future congresses to your plan, which as we’ve seen no congress EVER abides by. Crap, this congress can’t even abide by the laws it signed LAST YEAR. We’re sick and tired of these games. You may be avoiding a partial government shutdown, but your hastening the ULTIMATE government shutdown and economic collapse by REFUSING to deal with the real problem, which is government spending and overreach.
We have identified you and those like you for who your really are, and we will not forget. You are the can-kicking sellouts contributing to the destruction of our nation. It may not be today, this week, or this year, but we will be rid of you.
House Trims Pay Raises for Troops, Retirees
Dec 13, 2013
Military.com| by Brendan McGarry
The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday that would reduce pay raises for troops and retirement benefits for veterans.
A day before adjourning for holiday recess, the Republican-controlled chamber voted 332-94 to approve the Bipartisan Budget Act. Under the bill, federal agencies such as the Defense Department would avoid about $62 billion in automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, over two years.
It would be paid for in part by scaling back pensions for working-age military retirees.
“This bill is a firm step in the right direction,” Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, said on the floor before the vote. He crafted the budget deal with his Senate counterpart, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
“It’s not perfect,” he said. “It’s a start.”
Separately, the House also voted 350–69 in favor of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, which outlines military policy goals and spending targets for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The legislation would set troops’ pay raises at 1 percent next year, fund weapons programs such as the F-35 aircraft and adopt numerous provisions to combat military sexual assault.
The Democratic-led Senate is expected to vote on both measures next week.
The Pentagon faces about $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade as part of 2011 deficit-reduction legislation known as the Budget Control Act. That includes almost $500 billion in reductions already planned and another $500 billion in automatic cuts.
The Ryan-Murray bill would undo some of those reductions.
Of the $62 billion in sequestration relief in the pact, $44 billion would be applied in 2014 and another $18 billion in 2015, according to a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. That means the Pentagon would receive an additional $22 billion in 2014 and another $9 billion the following year, according to the office.
Marion Blakey, chief executive officer of the Aerospace Industries Association, an Arlington, Va.-based trade group representing defense and aerospace companies, welcomed the financial predictability the agreement gave the industry.
“Not only will this provide some sequestration relief, allowing at least some essential programs to go forward, it will also allow the appropriations process to proceed and develop a real budget for the remainder of this fiscal year and next,” she said in a statement.
The added federal spending would be offset by raising revenue and cutting costs in other areas of the budget, from increasing security fees for commercial airline passengers to reducing contributions to civilian and military pensions.
Military retirees between the ages of 40 and 62 would receive an annual cost-of-living increase to their retirement benefits at 1 percent less than the rise in inflation. The reduction would be phased in over three years and take full effect in 2016.
The pension change could decrease veterans’ retirement benefits by nearly 20 percent in some years, according to Michael Hayden, director of government relations at the Military Officers Association of America, an Alexandria, Va.-based nonprofit representing some 380,000 current and former officers.
For example, an E-7 who retires at age 40 would receive about $35,500 by age 62, down from about $44,000; while an O-5 who retires at age 42 would get about $63,900 by age 62, down from about $77,600, he said.
MOAA has vowed to fight the provision and already started a letter-writing campaign to lawmakers, Hayden said.
“This was a backroom deal that was made by a committee that doesn’t have jurisdiction over armed services,” he said. “It not only caught us by surprise, I think it caught members of Congress by surprise, especially members of the armed services committees.”
Others said the overall effect on military retirees won’t be that significant.
Retirees would see a roughly 10 percent decrease in retirement pay by age 61 — and the cumulative effect of the cost-of-living adjustment would decline even more over time, according to Kevin Brancato, a defense analyst at Bloomberg Government in Washington, D.C.
“You’re talking about a small decrease in the total package for a retiree’s lifetime,” he said in a telephone interview. “It’s between four and five percent.”
Meanwhile, the defense policy bill would reduce troops’ pay raise in 2014 to 1 percent from 1.7 percent this year. The change means the average enlisted member would receive a monthly pay increase of $26 instead of $47, according to Pentagon budget documents.
The percentage is in line with what the Obama administration requested and the Senate Armed Services Committee already approved. While the House previously passed a 1.8 percent military pay raise for next year, it agreed to limit the increase as part of a legislative compromise.
The lower raise for military personnel was “a tough decision” for Pentagon leaders, but it allowed them to not have to thin the ranks “by thousands of additional troops on top of the drawdown already planned,” according to budget documents.
The legislation would curb pay raises, but it would also reject proposed fee increases for the Tricare health care system and renew combat pay and other benefits.
More Military Pay information at Military.com:
Filed under: Constitution, economy, Military, National Defense, Opressive Government, Progressivism | Tagged: Congress, Constitution, debt, deficit, earned benefits, EBT, establishment republicans, John Boehner, military pay, military retirement, Obamaphone, Patty Murray, Paul Ryan, spending, unearned benefits, Welfare |