Cuts to veterans' benefits: Austerity only for some

Grover's so cute when he screams.

 

If there's a job where they deserve every single benefit they get, it's the military.

If there is a significant risk to your life as part of your job, and your job is done largely to help others, you deserve more benefits...

Police, Firemen, and military all fall into that category.

 

As a Grover fan, I'm offended.

 

This is also a great case of how there is a disconnect between supporting the troops, firemen and police officers, and then footing the bill to do so.

But that extends to a lot of what government provides. We all want to drive on good roads, have our kids go to good schools that are safe, have plenty of police and fire protection, and live in peace, but we get bent of shape at the thought of paying for it.

 

Hopefully, you mean the Sesame Street Grover.

 

What do you want to do, provide medical aid to a wounded serviceman, or blow another $50K at Tiffany's?

You should check with Newt on this.

 

DoD heal thyself.

They could fund benefits in perpetuity with a single year's worth of cost overruns.

http://www.galorath.com/wp/296-billion-dollars-in-dod-cost-overruns-2009-gao-weapons-systems-assessments.php

 

That's the one...

 

I think part of the problem is that at some point the woman who answers the phone in the County Clerk's office started getting the same kind of benefits that should be reserved for someone who enters burning buildings, arrests criminals and fights for this country's freedom.

The guy who has to leave his family for 18 months to go to Afghanistan and may not come back deserves better benefits than the local librarian, yet their benefit packages are remarkably similar.

 

But that's not who this is talking about. It's specifically referring to career military retirees, not those who've served part time or did one term and left. According to the article, that's 15 percent of enlisted and 50 percent of the officers.

The guy who has to leave his family for 18 months to go to Afghanistan and may not come back isn't even included in this, at least how I am reading it.

If you sign up at 18 and serve for 20 years, you're done by 40. I've worked two at least two military retirees who were a year older than I am. I'm nowhere close to retirement age. I don't think it's out of line to expect someone who's 45 to continue to have some sort of career rather than just collect. (And yes, both of them did active duty.) They also wanted to be in the workforce.

Based on what the article posted (and knowing full well there's more to it) I just don't think what's being asked is out of line.

 

The answer is simple. If you want to retain any experience in the military's workforce, then you have to offer a benefits package far and above that of what any civilian job will offer.

Let me explain my situation.

I'm a captain with almost 16 years of total service. But, because many of my years were spent in the National Guard, I only have credit for about seven years of active service; I have 13 more to do before retirement.

When I say "I," I'm refering to people in my situation, not just me.

I am a company grade officer, who manages enlisted Soldiers from specialist to sergeant first class and warrant officer 1 to chief warrant officer 3. There are about 15 people in my company who "make it happen," who actually are the wheels that run the company. I am one those people. Call me middle management.

I am the guy whose experience you DON'T want to lose. I'm the guy with solid deployment experiences, who puts in LONG work hours and deals with headaches that most can't imagine.

If anything more than minor cuts are made to my retirement and benefits, I'll bolt and find a civilian job. If you want to pay me like a civilian, I'll go be one. Then, you can spend another $2 million training a Black Hawk pilot to replace me. You can wait another four years until he has the same experience as me and pay for that with decreased readiness and, likely, more casualties in the next war.