Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Panetta should be FIRED for threat to military retirement

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 04:10 PM
Original message
Panetta should be FIRED for threat to military retirement
If Obama and Democrats in Congress embrace and push for this, there would be no surer sign that care more about obeying Wall Street than winning elections.

The ''reform'' would change military retirement from a guaranteed amount based on rank and available immediately when they retire after 20 or 30 years of service to a 401K type plan than wouldn't be available until they are 60. http://www.moaa.org/action/lac_issues/lac_issues_update/action_update_110729.htm#issue2">One military group did the math and it would end up costing an E-7 $1.6 MILLION over the course of their retirement, an 85% cut.

This is a classic corporate move on a couple of levels: reducing and/or stealing employees pensions, and by saying currently serving troops would be spared the change is a standard union-busting move--divide and conquer.

That Obama's Secretary of Defense even mentioned this other than to tear it to shreds destroys one of the things many progressive Democrats took pride in during the Bush years: Republicans give lip service to supporting the troops, but Democrats supported them in ways that mattered most to the troops, with VA funding, strengthening the GI Bill and the like.

That might have been why http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-14-military-donations_N.htm">troops donated to Obama six to one over McCain in 2008 (besides the mistaken impression that he was anti-war).

This shoots that advantage in the face.

Pragmatically,this is not just an insult to the troops, but it will make it even easier for mercenary companies to lure highly trained troops out of the military with their big paydays. That training cost taxpayer money, and the longer they stay in the military, the better return we get on our investment in them. When they join mercenary companies, we end up paying even more for the services of someone we paid to train in the first place.

This is not just my opinion, but when a similar ''reform'' was attempted in the 80's, the Pentagon had to plead to get it reversed because http://www.moaa.org/TodaysOfficer/magazine/Spring2006/legislative_front.asp">so many people were leaving the military.

If Democrats in Congress and the White House want to cut military spending, fine. Let them do it by ending the wars, and taking our troops off oil reserve hostile takeover and pipeline (and poppy field) protection duty (or at least making the oil company assholes actually pay for the service).

Panetta should publicly apologize for publicly entertaining this idea. If he does not, the right wing talking point about Democrats not supporting the troops will sadly be true. If he won't apologize, he should be fired.

Tell http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact">Obama, http://www.contactingthecongress.org/">your senators, and you congressman exactly that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. First thing that came to mind is an exodus and a fall off of recruitment
But maybe like you said - they'd join private companies. We used to call that becoming a soldier of fortune. Perhaps that's what the government wants. Pfui.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarge43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Officers may, depending upon their career field
Enlisted will be screwed, blewed and tatooed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angstlessk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. 401K's are just parked money for WALL STREET TO STEAL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama should be FIRED for threat to Social Security retirement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. +10
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. sadly true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. Horrors!!! This is why we need a good candidate to Challenge Obama.
It's a shame, but we are just fooling ourselves if we support him.

He has chosen an economic team that represents Wall Street and nobody else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. +++++
I fear that our system is so bankrupt and so far beyond redemption than no one will challenge him...No, I don't consider Roseanne Barr (sp?) a viable candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libmom74 Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernyankeebelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
9. My dad, father-in-law and husband all retired with over 21 yrs in the military. They
made it a career because of the benefits. When my dad and father-in-law retired they use to get free health care for themselves and their families. They children til 21 or 26 if they went to college. Now my husband pays for the both of us to have health care thru TRICARE and paid for our medications. Am telling you this will not work. People will not stay in and make it a career for a 401k. It won't happen. Why should they stay when they can get a civilian job and get a 401k. This will not work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
10. I have a former military, somewhat right wing guy in my class and when I mentioned this...
He not only already knew about it, he was visibly angry.

This shit will not wash.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. funny how right-wingers always react when their ox is being gored.
If he were a right-wing CEO of some company, he would gladly fuck over his employees this way. Typical selfish right-wing hypocritical asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-27-11 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
12. The MIC is being protected
Any cuts will come out of the troops' pockets, rather than from big contractors. And putting the troops in front as victims make cuts less likely to happen at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
13. Anyone who says they want to cut military spending but protect the benefits is BSing.
The money is in the personnel costs. If you don't believe that you have never seen the Defense budget. Retirement and health costs must be reduced. If that means people leave the military then so be it. Good luck with high unemployment finding jobs. We need a much smaller military so we need a few hundred thousand to leave anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. with this kind of push, those with marketable skills we paid for will leave and unskilled will stay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. TOON to go with this Monopoly guy asks Mauldin's Willie and Joe for their retirement dough
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Good. We need a much smaller and less able military.
That way we won't have the power to get involved in every dispute around the globe. Our military will still be big enough to defend us against the Chinese swimming across the Pacific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. even with that goal, I'd prefer to get there without rewarding Wall St. and screwing troops
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. As a former member of the air force I don't want to screw any troops either.
But I do know the size of our military and the size of the defense budget is totally out of control. To get it back in control our military has to be significantly downsized. And this has to been done in the near future not decades from now. In order to do this some troops will be screwed. That is unfortunate but it is just basic math.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. reduce the number of troops is entirely different from screwing with pensions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Pensions and health care costs are an enormous amount of the DoD budget.
You just can't significantly reduce that budget without lowering pension and health care costs. You can't get around the math.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. So you want a large, poorly compensated military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. No I want a small, fairly compensated military.
But some eggs will have to be broken to get there. It is just the math. Something that you don't want to recognize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. screwing with their pensions to please Wall Street is not the way to get there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demgrrrll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
14. Halliburton, Dyncorp and the rest should kick in.
Didn't Halliburton make 17.6 billion in 2006? They should fund the pensions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
22. Folks should have seen this coming
The right have been jabbering about "entitlements" for my whole lifetime, and may vets have eaten it up: they voted for McCain by a 10 point margin, after all. I am sorry, but nothing gets me more pig-biting mad than people who get checks from the government--many of whom have never done job than involved any other source of income--getting all incensed about "the size of government," and "all those bums."

It's just like how the mainly elderly, Medicare-eligible tea party people got played in 2010. They didn't think that the first thing the tea party GOP in the House would do would be to cut Medicare. That's not what 2010 was about, or what they campaigned on. And yet we had a grassroots movement of people, mostly people whose medical care is paid for by the government, getting absolutely livid about the idea that people other than themselves might have... medical care is paid for by the government. And now they are grumbling about these cuts. They knew someone's ox was to be gored, but didn't expect it would be theirs.

They cannot really cut social security that much. The bottom line is that the government did borrow those funds from the trust fund, and they will be repaid. The next big category of "entitlements" to be cut are military--pensions, tricare, etc. And, make no mistake, they will be cut.

Don't blame Obama for this. This is not an Obama initiative: the board that outlined this proposal was started by Rumsfeld. It's stacked with GOP fatcats. Both Republican business fatcats and Democratic business fatcats are behind it, so it's not Obama's fault, or Panetta's.

I'm sorry, but I have a certain sense of schadenfreude about this. My great grandfather was career military (started his career when we had virtually no military, in fact, served as one of our first snipers in WWI), my grandfather was, too (20 years in the Army, combat infantry, 20 years as a civilian army employee) and my father as well (Army aviator, spent most of my childhood in Vietnam). My dad, who used to be a Democrat, now flies billionaires around for a career, and has bought the GOP party line, hook, line and sinker. All while everything he has now-his healthcare, his career, his full retirement at CW5-he owes entirely to Uncle Sam. When I ask him about how he supports cuts to programs for the poor while getting much bigger checks than any of them, he looks at me with a puzzled expression and says "But I earned it." He just didn't know, apparently, that when they were talking about entitlements, they meant military pensions. This is someone who grew up in poor, rural South Carolina, and probably would not have had much of any sort of career, if not for the Army.

And yet, many of these folks are entirely sheltered from the vagaries of the "free market system" that the rest of us face. The military is cradle-to-grave socialism. Let's assume you're born into a military family. You get born at taxpayer expense, are educated in DoD schools, and join the military, where they give you job training and you get health care and a pension nobody else gets anymore. Your base pay isn't great, but you get a uniform allowance, TDY pay, possibly housing. You can take vacations at DoD-run sites, to include ski resorts and government golf courses. There's equal pay for equal work for men and women, assuming same rank and grade, and policies that protect folks that are better than most employers. You do your time and retire, only to get a job working for the government as a civilian, thanks to veteran's preference: you're not alone, of course, since the government is the largest employer of vets, with 26% of the federal workforce having served. You do your time in the government, where your time in the military helps your pension, and you max out your thrift savings contributions, with matching money from Uncle Sam, and build a tidy nest egg. Then you retire, get paid, and vote Republican, and complain to all and sundry about deadbeats who are not economically productive, in many cases without having been economically productive for a day in your own working life. You've never helped to build, design or sell any product anyone has ever wanted, but look down upon the people who do, and don't think they should be able to form unions to demand the same sorts of rights to which you've felt entitled your whole life. Then you start listening to right-wing hate radio, and it makes you more angry, so angry that you get hypertension, stroke out and die, and are buried at taxpayer expense, on public land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. My wife and I both teach, she K-12 and me community college, and we've met lots of people
like those you describe--they vote for those who would like to see their jobs eliminated, or more accurately, handed over to for profit, McEducation corporations.

It makes about as much sense as the Log Cabin Republicans or Brick Oven Jews for Hitler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Good examples
Also, right-wing intellectuals. Some folks fail to realize that, once the takeover is complete, they become as redundant as anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC