Category: Veterans Issues

Congress didn’t expect the backlash from veterans and Veterans’ Service organizations when they cut the cost of living allowance for military retirees’ pensions. The Washington Post reports the backpedaling by Congressmen and Senators who voted for the cut but who are now feeling the heat;

The cut is small — a one-percentage-point reduction in the annual cost-of-
living increase — but it has provoked outrage among veterans, some of whom argue that the country is reneging on a solemn pact. And even though lawmakers, especially in the GOP, fulminate about the need to cut the cost of federal health and retirement benefits, many have vowed to roll the cut back when Congress returns to work next week.

The authors of the budget deal, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), have agreed to amend the provision to exempt disabled retirees and survivors of those killed in action, eliminating roughly 10 percent of the $6 billion in savings projected over the next decade.

Yeah, everyone always say that the cut is “small” – but if it’s so small, why did they even bother? Lord knows that there are more egregious things that could be reduced or cut entirely out of federal spending – the child tax credit for illegal aliens, for example.

From another article in the Washington Post (quoted in Stars & Stripes);

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who is up for reelection next year, has introduced a bill to replace the $6 billion saved by the COLA cut by instead “eliminating a tax loophole for offshore corporations,” a news release from her office said.

Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte, N.H., James Inhofe, Okla., Lindsey Graham, S.C., and others also have come out against the COLA cut.

On Dec. 23, Reps. Julia Brownley, D-Calif., and Ted Poe, R-Texas, introduced similar measures that would repeal the provision.

“As a member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I believe our servicemembers, veterans, and their families must receive the benefits they have earned and deserve,” Brownley said in a statement. “These benefits are owed to them without equivocation. That is why I have introduced legislation to repeal the military retiree COLA reduction.”

Yeah, well, they thought they could get away with it, because veterans are a much smaller constituency than other groups, they didn’t count on our outdoor voices. Show me how willing Congress is to cut spending by cutting their own pensions and their own pay. This is me not holding my breath.

Chock Block sends us a link to the USAToday piece today written by Congresman Paul Ryan who tries to explain away his legislation to cut the growth of military pensions. Somehow, he thinks that retirement pay is going to suck up the whole Defense budget;

The federal government has no greater obligation than to keep the American people safe and we must take care of the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line. For that reason, Congress is understandably hesitant to make changes to military compensation.

But even hesitance has a cost. The need for reform is undeniable. 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.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a combat vet himself, has said “that we can no longer put off military compensation reform. DOD’s leadership, Chairman Dempsey, the service chiefs, the service secretaries, and myself, we all know that we need to slow cost growth in military compensation. Otherwise, we’ll have to make disproportionate cuts to military readiness and modernization.”

Ya know, I used to go along with the reductions and alterations to our pay and compensation, thinking that it was my patriotic duty. But then I noticed that the military were the only ones making a sacrifice. Ryan would be more believable if there weren’t so many other cuts that could be made to the budget which have more of an impact on the debt, other than veteran compensation – you know, like cutting $4.2 billion dollars in child-credits to illegal aliens as opposed to the less than $2 billion/year in savings on the backs of veterans.

Ryan has decided that veterans can afford $100,000 loss of compensation during their retirement for their service. I don’t remember anyone asking me if I could fit that into my budget, but then federal government knows more about my financial situation than I know.

But it’s more about politics than fairness, anyway. Voting to eliminate cutting the checks to illegal alien families is more likely to impact the votes a candidate might get than cutting veterans’ compensation for their unquestioning service to the country.

In their final attempt to help the president keep his promise to not balance the budget on the backs of veterans, the Senate Republicans tried to shore up veterans’ pensions last night. However, Democrats were dead set against it, according to Fox News;

Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tried unsuccessfully to use a parliamentary tactic to force a vote on the amendment, which he wrote to undo the cuts for military retirees.

A provision in the already House-passed bill would cut retirement benefits for military retirees by $6 billion over 10 years.

Sessions wanted to instead eliminate an estimated $4.2 billion in annual spending by reining in an IRS credit that illegal immigrants have claimed.

He and fellow senators argued the bill unfairly sticks veterans and other military retirees with the cost of new spending.

“It’s not correct, and it should not happen,” Sessions said on the floor.

“By blocking my amendment, they voted to cut pensions for wounded warriors,” he said afterwards. “Senators in this chamber have many valid ideas for replacing these pension cuts, including my proposal to close the tax welfare loophole for illegal filers, and all deserved a fair and open hearing. But they were denied.”

According to the Washington Beacon, disabled veterans won’t be exempt from the cut in cost-of-living allowance adjustments;

“It has been asserted that the controversial change to military retirees’ pensions affects those who are ‘working-age’ and ‘still in their working years,’ with the clear suggestion being that these individuals are able to work,” Sessions said in a statement. “That’s why I was deeply troubled when my staff and I discovered that even individuals who have been wounded and suffered a service-related disability could see their pensions reduced under this plan.”

“It is unthinkable that this provision would be included in a deal that spares current civilian workers from the same treatment,” he said. “An equivalent amount of savings and more can be easily found, and I hope the Senate will move to address the unbalanced treatment of our servicemembers before considering the legislation any further.”

Gee, who could have predicted that Democrats would want to screw veterans while leaving the welfare queens relatively untouched? Oh, that’s right, I did back in 2008. Of course, the Democrats couldn’t have done it without the support of House Republicans who are more than happy to sell veterans down the river so they can look like they’re willing to compromise.

You know that anything draft dodger Harry Reid supports isn’t something that is vet friendly, but he’s praising the defense budget that was hammered out last night. It saves some the defense expenditures, but it reduces future pension and pay increases for Cost of Living Allowances (COLA) for the troops, while preserving the COLA increases for federal employees. From Stars & Stripes;

Democrats decried the fact that the deal does not extend unemployment benefits, which expire Dec. 31, and that federal workers hired after Dec. 31, 2013, will have to contribute 1.3 percent more to their retirement funds.

Military advocates are left wanting, too: Veterans who retire from the military before age 62 will see a reduction in their annual cost-of-living benefit increase. Retirees 62 and older, and those retired on disability, would not be affected.

“It was a compromise,” Reid said. “We didn’t get what we wanted. They didn’t get what they wanted. But that’s what legislation is all about, working together. ‘Compromise’ is not a bad word.”

But, in this case, the “compromise” screwed veterans (a traditional Republican voting base) while preserving the support for traditional Democrat voters. So yeah, compromise is a bad word, since it’s about preserving a voter base, rather than doing what’s right. As it is, the bill reduces the COLA allowance for military retirees and the troops to less that the Consumer Price Index (the measure for inflation), while it doesn’t affect the COLA for retired government employees.

To give you an idea how that affects military pensions, the first month I retired from the Army, my pension was less than $12,000/year, today, twenty years later, it’s $18,000 from COLA increases. I didn’t get rich, but my money kept pace with inflation, and it was something that my family could depend on in a tough job market. It’s better as I head into my retirement than it was when I retired from the military. But, Congress would rather that I retire at my pension twenty years ago at two-thirds of the current purchasing power.

I can only guess that the reduction in COLA won’t affect Congressional pensions, either.