Started By
Message
locked post

Disposable: Paul Ryan's Budget Epitomizes How Washington Actually Sees Veterans

Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:39 am
Posted by WhiskeyPapa
Member since Aug 2016
9277 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:39 am
Big blinking mess.



Tony Carr, John Q. Public
Dec. 24, 2013, 3:15 PM

"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to look tough on budget issues. In an editorial published in USA Today explaining his decision to lead the passage of a budget that reduced vested veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000, Mr. Ryan founded his message on the urgent need to “do the right thing.”

In doing so, he created a painful irony; Ryan’s budget seeks to save $6B over the next 10 years – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of projected federal spending over that period — by extracting it from compensation already guaranteed to people who earned it risking their lives and defending their country. In other words, despite his assurances to the contrary, he wants to do exactly the wrong thing.

The military and veteran population stand in awe at Ryan’s explanation. He apparently believes we are not only naive enough not to overlook the gaping moral maw between his words and actions, but also dumb enough not to see this for what it is: just the beginning.

If he can decouple vested veteran pensions from inflation while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and realize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned.

Ryan presents a classic false dilemma. He wants us to believe the nation must choose between keeping promises to veterans and remaining secure. He admonishes us that “since 2001, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost per service member in the active-duty force has risen by 41% in inflation-adjusted dollars.”

What he doesn’t mention is that when the $6T eventual price tag of those wars is counted, personnel costs will define a tiny percentage of their total price tag, despite the fact that any success we register from those conflicts will have been wholly earned not by machines, but by the people who fought and died to carry out the nation’s will. Paying people isn’t something we do instead of staying secure as a nation . . . it’s the very way we stay secure. People win wars, not machines, bureaucracies, or defense contractors.

What Ryan also doesn’t mention is that part of the reason money is running short these days is that he voted to authorize and expand the two wars whose costs have now finally become so inescapable that he and others can no longer deny them.

As these costs fall due, the search is growing frantic for the most politically expedient way to ameliorate them, and politicians like Ryan are finding it easier to target troop pensions than to engage DoD in genuine reform. Mr. Ryan obfuscates his purpose by hiding behind Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and his generals, claiming their desire for pension reform vindicates his attempt to extract budgetary savings on the backs of warriors who have just endured the most punishing operations tempo in national history.

But notwithstanding that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force claims DoD wasn’t even consulted before the Ryan-Murray provision was inserted, what Ryan doesn’t advertise is that Hagel and the generals are struggling to make ends meet because Congress and the President have underresourced the department without granting it mission relief, leaving them with a problem they can’t legally solve and have a solemn duty not to abandon.

Hagel, Dempsey and the service chiefs desperately want reform, and are entitled to the presumption they’d rather not achieve reform in the predatory manner thus far undertaken. But this isn’t reform. This is the opposite — it’s the avoidance of reform. This is cheating . . . by saving money without having to engage in reform. This is back-door budgeteering. Nothing more."

LINK
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80580 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:42 am to
quote:

If he can decouple vested veteran pensions from inflation while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and realize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned.


I've been told speculative editorializing is a hallmark of fake news, so I'd ask you to please remove this thread. Thanks.
Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
62514 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:44 am to
I'd be one of the first to agree that veterans benefits needs to be reformed, but I wonder what Ryan has done about congressional benefits and pensions.
Posted by Lakeboy7
New Orleans
Member since Jul 2011
23965 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:05 am to
I hope he runs with this, then go after social security.
Posted by el Gaucho
He/They
Member since Dec 2010
53556 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:26 am to
Holy shite veterans get a 120k pension?? No wonder were broke
Posted by AUbused
Member since Dec 2013
7785 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:38 am to
Couple things:

quote:

Ryan’s budget seeks to save $6B over the next 10 years – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of projected federal spending over that period


Trumps infrastructure plan spends 500B - 1T over that same period.

That being said, this article is why we're never going to cut jack shite out of the budget. Because any time you touch anything its a shite fest of teeth gnashing. Its either think about the chirren, or soldiers, or grey spotted horny toad.

Spending cuts are not going to be fun.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 7:53 am
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124721 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 8:52 am to
quote:

reduced vested veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000
Details? Timeframe? Year of planned enactment?

This reads a whole lot like "Congress is increasing benefits 5%, which translates to a "cut" of .........."

As FedGov pay increases are referred to as "cuts" in this manner all the time, I'll hold commentary until details are forthcoming.
Posted by AbuTheMonkey
Chicago, IL
Member since May 2014
8038 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 8:58 am to
Good. Pensions need to be cut. You shouldn't be able to draw a military pension until you're at least 55 and probably more like 60. No more retiring at 38 and getting a pension for more than twice as long as you were in the military.

Signed,

A former infantry officer and Iraq War vet
Posted by Tigerdev
Member since Feb 2013
12287 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:02 am to
Benefit reform for military is desperately needed to maintain current troop levels. A massive pension, health care for life, affirmative action on steroids for obtaining a federal job. Post 9/11 GI bill pays for all of your tuition even if you sat in DC for four years and got out.

Posted by Cruiserhog
Little Rock
Member since Apr 2008
10460 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:42 am to
quote:

"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)


typical Republican in power, screw the little guy, while the fat cats in defense and industry get subsidies
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35511 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:47 am to
quote:

Dec. 24, 2013, 3:15 PM


What year is it today? Is this still the same bill?
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
99877 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:51 am to
frick.

Paul.

Ryan.
Posted by Watchmaker
Member since Aug 2016
768 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 11:51 am to
sequestration. I doubt more than 2% even know what it is or why we have it. Vote with your feet, people.
Posted by Jax-Tiger
Port Saint Lucie, FL
Member since Jan 2005
24926 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 12:02 pm to
You are being entirely disingenuous with your characterization of this.

The adjustment is for younger retirees under the age of 62. So, if someone joins the Navy at age 18 and retire at age 38, with a full 20 year pension, they will be in that "double dipping" period in their life, where they get a Navy penion, while working at another job.

During that period of time between the ages of 38 and 62, the Navy pension will grow at a 1% slower rate of growth than it used to. Once the retiree reaches the age of 62, their pension will be recalculated so that it will be where it would have been if he or she had received the full inflation adjustment every year since he or she retired.

So, it only impacts the veterans during that "double dipping" stage of life, and not when the veteran truly reaches retirement age.

In addition, the armed forces have changed their retirement plans so that it includes a 401K option, which will benefit those who choose not to serve the full 20 years, and the 401K plan has some very generous matching contributions to help our active duty servicemen and women to plan better for their retirement.
Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 2:51 pm to
Almost everything is "a small part of the budget" so almost nothing gets cut.

going to have to have an across the board bludgeon, that will drive managers in govt to react like mgrs in the private sector do when their resources get slashed by the market
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram