Proposal to not pay military retirement until 57!

[Gumby]

Until youve done the job and faced the challenges, you will never understand.

Dismissing a person's views on this topic just because they have never been in the military is unfair and, I think, a bit unwise. Anyone can have a good idea, and sometimes those who are most immersed in a system are not the best ones to identify where it needs to be changed. Personally, I have always felt that the possibility of an early pension is a key part of the deal when one signs up with the military, but I'm willing to give Ziggy a fair hearing. I would suggest that just a tad more objectivity might be helpful.

 

[ziggy29]

Dismissing a person's views on this topic just because they have never been in the military is unfair and, I think, a bit unwise. Anyone can have a good idea, and sometimes those who are most immersed in a system are not the best ones to identify where it needs to be changed. Personally, I have always felt that the possibility of an early pension is a key part of the deal when one signs up with the military, but I'm willing to give Ziggy a fair hearing. I would suggest that just a tad more objectivity might be helpful.

Thank you. I could also add that one could apply similar logic and say that we should not allow a president to be Commander in Chief if he didn't serve. How can he make moves with our military if he doesn't understand it? He must not understand it if he never served, yes?

For the most part, I was discussing public pensions in general yesterday (in response to being unfairly tagged "anti-pension" in general) and acknowledged military and law enforcement as possible exceptions to reform for new hires, but everyone keeps getting back to those two areas as if that's the point I'm emphasizing or what I'm "going after."

 

[utrecht]

I do think the President should be required to serve in the military, and I prefer not to vote for one who hasnt, but this is a democracy and people have the right to vote for whoever they want. I dont think its a major problem because the President has many advisors and I assume he listens to his military advisors on related issues as any good leader would.

If people want to vote for Congressmen who make new laws that curtail military and / or law enforecement pensions, thats their right also, but they wont like the results.

As we speak, in the middle of one of the worst recessions ever, my department has over 200 openings. They have doubled the recruiting staff to try to fill the positions and still cant. My dept. has one of the best (if not THE best) law enforcement pensions in the country and Im sure if you looked at it, you would think it needed to be "reviewed" for new hires, but still, they cant fill the positions. Why do you think this is?

The job HAS to be done. They HAVE to find people to do it. They HAVE to pay people whatever it takes to do the job. If they cant find enough people, they have to raise pay and / or benefits until they do. Its an easy concept really. If a city has money trouble and cant raise taxes, they need to close pools or libraries or cut back on trash pick-up or whatever. They CANT lower law enforcement benefits without serious consequences.

Cut back miltary pay, benefits and /or pensions and you will severely weaken the military. Cut it back far enough and you will have to re-instate the draft because their wont be enough volunteers.

I dont know if you have kids or not, but if you had an 18 year old son, would you advise him to join the miltary right now?

I havent seen anyone argue against reviewing non military / law enforcement pensions, but this is a military thread and youve also posted similar ideas in at least one thread where law enforcement pensions were being discussed.

So if you are only talking about revamping pensions for goverment employees who have administrative type jobs, then we have nothing to argue about.

 

[ziggy29]

I havent seen anyone argue against reviewing non military / law enforcement pensions, but this is a military thread....

It was until you made a blanket statement about me being "anti-pension" when I'm not.

And with that, I'm out of this thread.

 

[Rustic23]

I would like to address the 'fear of being laid off' comment. Anyone that has been in the service knows that this threat exist in the military. For an officer, if he does not make O4, he will be forced out, and 05's also had a mandatory retirement age when I was in. General Officers are, I believe, are the only Officers that can serve beyond 30 years. Now you may be of the school that says 'well 30 years is long enough', but many of the general officers would be glad to continue beyond this point if they could. I am not aware of a single company that has an 'up or out promotion system' similar to the military. The air lines are close with a mandatory retirement age for pilots. It is as if your firm hired 100 accountants and said 'no matter how good you are, only 75% of you can stay with the company' till retirement.

I am not saying the system should not exist as it does. It was put in by Eisenhower after WWII to force senior officers and enlisted to retire. I am just saying that the fear of layoff does exist in the military, maybe not to the extent in the civilian work force but it is still there.

 

[Bimmerbill]

Army had 28 years total comissioned time, with time added when you hit O6, and more for O7 and above.

Way different rules for medical officers, and I think certain others (JAG maybe?).

There have been many, many programs that were used to force people out (reduction in force).

 

[jimnjana]

I think changes to the Military Retirement system will occur, this proposal may not fly, but more and more of the military retirement benefits will be pushed into the 401k/tsp vs traditional pension. Fed Gov't civilian retirement plans as well will see the workers assume more risk for their retirement benefits (tsp/401k). This trend will continue as it has in the private sector.

Jim

 

[chinaco]

I am a veteran and am biased towards veterans' well being.

However, most private pensions that have survived have been modified (with less generous benefits). What has happened in business provides some insight into what will happen for various government employees (including the military).

We are living longer, therefore the cost of pensions have increased. In addition, they were often not funded appropriately. Now that the entities are facing the reality of paying... they are going to have try to fix it.

I suspect the traditional pensions will survive but with less generous benefits. I believe the reduction will be in terms of tax increases (of some sort) and moving the full-retirement age higher. There will probably still be the option to ER at a reduced amount... but it will probably be further reduced from what it is today.

Short of having national health care... I suspect that retirement medical benefits will be reduced also. It may be available, but the Gov employee will shoulder a larger portion of the burden.

Ultimately gov entities will make moves to lower payout one way or the other.

If the general population is not going to get those benefits (traditional pension and medical)... then the writing is on the wall or at least you can see where it is headed.

 

[Rustic23]

I think a plan that would have the least effect on force levels is to increase the retirement age. For instants, pilots retire from the service at 20 years, age 42-44, on average, and go to the airlines for another 20 years. It is not more strenuous to fly an C-5 than a 747. Well a little if a combat zone is in the picture, but still the same qualifications are required. As the services become more technical and less physical, as folks live longer, and healthier, it would appear that retirement at 25 years would work just as well as 20. Many General Officers stay past 30 years and are productive. It may be that some specialty codes would have a lower retirement age, and just like bonuses these could be recognized and adjusted.

You may also be able to phase it in rather than grandfathering the entire force. I think the younger troops are more interested in current pay and benefits than retirement. About the 10 year point folks begin to focus on retirement, past 15 years many become myopic.

So while I think things may change, I think there are things that can be done that do not have as much impact as others might.

 

[lets-retire]

Rustic--while you do bring up an interesting point about technology, I think it ignores the basic fact that in most military jobs you are in fact a rifleman first (whether the service agrees or not). The Navy might be the exception, since they are not likely to be attack by ground forces in the middle of the ocean, but they have equally arduous duty, that requires them to maintain a minimal level of fitness. That is my position, fitness. It doesn't matter how carefully you train, if you are training hard enough to be in relatively decent enough shape to go to war, you will most likely suffer lasting injuries (most likely through accidents). Add to that the marginal medical care received at military hospitals and the formula for lasting physical injuries is developed. I had the saying while in, that I really didn't want to serve past 20 years, only because my body wouldn't last that long. At this point I know I was and still am on track to wanting to call it quits after 20 years, not likely to happen since I'm not in the military any longer, but I still have to maintain a high level of fitness. That level of fitness is becoming more and more painful to maintain due, in part, to some of the injuries I suffered while serving.

I would have no problem with the government going to a retirement program for the military similar, if not the same, to the 6(c)/12(d)retirement offered to federal civilian law enforcement, fire fighters, other high risk federal jobs. It allows for 25 and out, or 20 years service and I think it's 52 years old. I don't know what the difference in cost would be, but I don't think the military members should have to pay for the pension side of it.

 

[Rustic23]

Actually, and I have absolutely no statistics to back this up, I think that you may find that the majority of the folks in uniform are not direct combat related. (I was looking for a term other than rifleman). When you take into account the number of troops it takes to support each combat troop, I think far more of our service members are in the support role. I admit I come from an AF background and very few in the AF are in direct combat related specialties. However, that is why I said some adjustment would have to be made for combat arms. However, and once more not my field, it seems that the junior enlisted, NCO's and Officers are the ones doing the physical stuff in combat. While some senior officers may have strenuous jobs very few generals are charging a hill with a gun.

 

[utrecht]

If we are talking about raising the retirement age because people are living so long, we should do the same to social security. When SS was first implemeted, it was designed to cover the last couple years of life. Life expectancies have risen so far that you shouldnt be able to collect SS until you are 80 or so. Im sure thats never going to happen but thats about the only way its going to get fixed.

The downward spiral that the entire SS system is in is astronomically worse than any possible problems with miltary retirement.

 

[eridanus]

In the military we deal with certain things that people don't have to deal with in civilian jobs like overtime w/o pay

"[O]vertime w/o pay"? Ye gods! That's unheard of in corporate America.

 

[Nords]

As the services become more technical and less physical, as folks live longer, and healthier, it would appear that retirement at 25 years would work just as well as 20. Many General Officers stay past 30 years and are productive. It may be that some specialty codes would have a lower retirement age, and just like bonuses these could be recognized and adjusted.

That's an interesting thought. I wonder if military veterans are really living as long as the general population. An interesting issue is that the military only inducts healthier people, so right from the start the military population is hypothetically biased toward better overall health and longer life.

I guess my question is whether veterans are dying at younger ages than their civilian equivalents. Of course it's hard to tease out the "equivalence" of factors like combat, stress, exposure to HAZMAT and ionizing radiation... maybe it's more appropriate to compare veterans' longevity to police and firefighters after all.

 

[randyman65]

"exposure to HAZMAT and ionizing radiation... maybe it's more appropriate to compare veterans' longevity to police and firefighters after all. "

My greatest hazard was lack of sleep. The 152 mRem I got in 8 years had a negligible effect on my health.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

That's an interesting thought. I wonder if military veterans are really living as long as the general population. An interesting issue is that the military only inducts healthier people, so right from the start the military population is hypothetically biased toward better overall health and longer life.

I guess my question is whether veterans are dying at younger ages than their civilian equivalents. Of course it's hard to tease out the "equivalence" of factors like combat, stress, exposure to HAZMAT and ionizing radiation... maybe it's more appropriate to compare veterans' longevity to police and firefighters after all.

I know as a civilian. I do not have flashbacks from my line of work. While I have a relative who still has them since returning from Iraq. No scary machining stories.. Well there was this one time I was pulling a double shift and accidentally stuck my hand in the machine.. That was was stupid but so far no post traumatic symptoms.

 

[Rustic23]

Nords, I found the quote below from another site.

The Retired Military Almanac indicates average" military retired life expectations (nondisability) at age 40 is 36.1 years; age 50 28.9 years; age 60 20.5 years...and like that. "

then double checked it with this site http://www.annuityadvantage.com/lifeexpectancy.htm

Age Military Civilian
40 36.1 37.8
50 28.9 28.46
60 20.5 20.36

Now I have no idea how accurate either of these sites are, but it appears that if you make it to 50, you do a little better than the general public. I would say that the figures are, IMHO, close enough to be the same.

On the other side of the equation, I got a phone call from DS saying his best friend just got killed in combat. They went to college together, flight school in the Marines, and were both stationed at the same base until he deployed. The Wife is 8 months pregnant. No amount of money or benefits makes up for this.

 

[Nords]

On the other side of the equation, I got a phone call from DS saying his best friend just got killed in combat. They went to college together, flight school in the Marines, and were both stationed at the same base until he deployed. The Wife is 8 months pregnant. No amount of money or benefits makes up for this.

Crap. I've never figured out how to explain this to my nephew, and I probably never will.

 

[lets-retire]

Actually, and I have absolutely no statistics to back this up, I think that you may find that the majority of the folks in uniform are not direct combat related. (I was looking for a term other than rifleman). When you take into account the number of troops it takes to support each combat troop, I think far more of our service members are in the support role. I admit I come from an AF background and very few in the AF are in direct combat related specialties. However, that is why I said some adjustment would have to be made for combat arms. However, and once more not my field, it seems that the junior enlisted, NCO's and Officers are the ones doing the physical stuff in combat. While some senior officers may have strenuous jobs very few generals are charging a hill with a gun.

You don't need to be in a directly combat related career field to get into a fire fight. If the person can deploy to a combat zone they are for the most part in a career field that is directly combat related. There are exceptions for medical, religious personnel, etc, but for the most part my statement applies to all career fields. Even the Air Force started to move back to this train of thought by requiring all Airman to go through a ruck march (weak as it was, it was in improvement), all Airmen are trained to use and maintain an M-16, and several other common combat skills, all while in basic training. Additionally, there was a yearly training requirement that consisted of directly combat related skills and tactics. All of this change came about when the leadership finally realized that when Airmen are in a combat zone every person needed to be able to be called upon to defend the base, not just the cops. The days of a 702 sitting in the office not able to assist in providing for the common defense of the base went out the window several years ago.

As far as what careers in the Air Force are directly involved with combat, there are two. Cops and pilots. The combat controllers and pararescue aren't considered combat specialties, even though they get into more poop than anybody in the Air Force. Their jobs are to rescue and to provide air support, not combat. The cops' jobs in a combat zone is indistinguishable from an Army infantryman. They use the same skills, same field manuals, and same regulations. In fact the training given to the cops for combat zone operations comes straight from the Army. Pilots are obvious.

 

[ATC KH]

The combat controllers and pararescue aren't considered combat specialties, even though they get into more poop than anybody in the Air Force. Their jobs are to rescue and to provide air support, not combat.

Normally just a lurker, but this quote deems correcting. Pararescuemen and Combat Controllers are most assuredly combat specialties in the USAF, along with Tactical Air Control Parties (TACP) and Special Operations Weather Teams (SOWT). I'm utterly confused as how you could not consider these combat specialties. These four AFSCs make up what the USAF considers its battlefield airmen. The following is the definition of battlefield airmen as taken from the USAF website:

"Certain ground combat capabilities are an Airman's responsibility and require unique surface operations that are integral to the application of air and space power. To meet this responsibility, the Air Force recognized the need to organize, train, and equip a force of Battlefield Airmen capable of delivering distinctive expertise in a ground combat environment with unequaled firepower, accuracy, responsiveness, flexibility and persistence. These Airmen include Pararescue, Combat Control, Tactical Air Control and Battlefield Weather professionals. They provide a skill set not commonly found across the Air Force and typically operate in combat zones outside the perimeter of Air Force bases."

The full article can be found at Factsheets : Battlefield Airmen

 

[Nords]

I'm utterly confused as how you could not consider these combat specialties.

Leonidas, I'll bring the popcorn if you'll bring the sea stories...

 

[lets-retire]

Normally just a lurker, but this quote deems correcting. Pararescuemen and Combat Controllers are most assuredly combat specialties in the USAF, along with Tactical Air Control Parties (TACP) and Special Operations Weather Teams (SOWT). I'm utterly confused as how you could not consider these combat specialties.

Well then let me clear up the issue for you. Part of your confusion might be in how I explained my position. By "directly involved with combat" I meant actively going out and looking for an enemy and destroying it. The four special ops careers listed do go out, normally with the Army and as I stated do get involved in the fight more than any other AFSC in the Air Force, but their job is not to go out looking for the enemy and destroy it. Their jobs, in turn are: Pararescue conduct conventional or unconventional rescue operations. Combat control deploy undetected into combat and hostile environments to establish assault zones or airfields, while simultaneously conducting air traffic control, fire support, command and control, direct action, counterterrorism, foreign internal defense, humanitarian assistance and special reconnaissance in the joint arena. TACP advise U.S. Army conventional and special operations ground maneuver commanders on the integration and execution of air and space power. Combat weather collect localized weather information, assist mission planning, and generate accurate, mission-tailored target and route forecasts in support of conventional and special operations.

The closest one to actually an aggressive combat unit would be the combat controllers, but what keeps them from actually being a combat unit is that they call in the planes to do the work. Keep in mind that each are also riflemen first so, yes they do shoot and are shot at and as I stated a couple times already they do get into the fight more often than the typical Air Force member. The primary jobs (meaning what they were trained to do by AFSC) is not to go out and shoot the enemy. They do do that, but only as a side job to their main mission.

 

[ATC KH]

Well, you and I clearly have different opinions of what "directly involved in combat" means. Tell you what, read this article about a Combat Controller recently awarded an Air Force Cross and tell me his situation and actions are not consistent with what you would consider combat. JTAC to get Air Force Cross - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times

 

[lets-retire]

I can also recount the efforts of a pararescueman who was in Mogadishu during the ranger raid who, IIRC, was killed. Or Mr. Levitow who was a loadmaster during Vietnam who received the Medal of Honor. Or countless other military members who were injured, killed, or captured, but were not in a directly combat related career field. The link you provided directly supports what I stated. Yes the combat controller was in the fight, (even I stated several times now that they get in the fight more than most in the Air Force), but his mission was to call in air strikes, not necessarily directly engage the enemy on his own, though it was done. It would be similar to a combat medic serving with special forces (I don't know if they still have that but go with it). They are in the heat of the battle with the combat forces, but their mission is not to engage the enemy directly it is to provide medical care. Another example is combat camera troops who go in armed with both firearms and cameras. Their mission is to take photos of the battle, but they also engage any enemies if the battle get too bad. They are not a directly combat related career field, but they find themselves in the heat of the battle.

Please do not think I am in any way taking away from the training, sacrifice, or ability of the Air Force spec ops people (I was good to go with combat controller until they brought up the jump school requirement). I am simply pointing out that their mission is to support the combat troops, even though they often find themselves in positions to have to directly engage the enemy. All of this goes back the my initial premise that, with few exceptions, every person in the military is a rifleman first.

 

[Rustic23]

Lets-Retire, I too find 'your' definition much to confining for this discussion. If it would make you happy, maybe we should use combat related. I still profess there are way more troops in the military that are not in combat related fields where physical fitness is not a prime consideration as to their ability to do there job. Many of these leave the service at 20 years and go directly into the civilian work force doing the same job.

Recently I was at one of the Air Forces Pilot Training bases. It appeared the majority of the jobs in maintenance were being done by civilians, and many appeared to be old enough to be retired military. I also suspect it would be cheaper, overall, to have kept them on active duty, than pay retirement, contract salaries, and contract overhead.