Well the suits in Washington, DC are still busy trying to find a way to screw military members out of their retirement:
The military retirement system is unsustainable and in dire need of repair, according to an influential Pentagon advisory board.The Defense Business Board — tasked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to find ways to reduce the DOD budget — says annual Treasury Department payments into the system will balloon from $47.7 billion this year to $59.3 billion by 2020.
The 25-member group of civilian business leaders suggests that the Defense Department look at changing the current system, even hinting at raising the number of years troops must serve before being eligible for retirement pay.
The current system “encourages our military to leave at 20 years when they are most productive and experienced, and then pays them and their families and their survivors for another 40 years,” committee chairman Arnold Punaro told board members at their quarterly meeting late last month. (…………)
As a possible fix, the review recommended the DOD test a plan that would calculate retirement pay based on a servicemember’s time in service and salary. The benefit would be payable at age 57 for those with 20 years of service and at 60 for those with less than 20 years. Under the plan, in which troops would be vested after 10 years, the DOD would annually contribute up to 5 percent of basic pay to the servicemembers’ retirement, similar to many civilian business plans. [Stars & Stripes]
Read the rest of the article at the link, but the article also brings up a 30 year retirement as well. I would not stay in for retirement under any of those plans and I know many other people who would not either. As was mentioned in the article the military is not a civilian job due to the deployments, living conditions, and toll on your body after 20 years. With such hardships there has to be light at the end of the tunnel for people making this profession a career and after multiple deployments 30 years of service is just too long for someone with a wife to put up with and will likely choose to get out.
Also notice that the article is once again quoting Nathaniel Fick who I posted about before on his efforts to cut US military retirement benefits. What is going on is that the politicians use these think tank types as trial balloons to see what the public reaction will be. They are trying to see if they can gain steam with this issue. The way I look at it is if Congress thinks the military benefits are too high and a drain on the federal budget, than why don’t they advocate for cuts in benefits for the entire government civilian workforce? Shared sacrifice. By the way remember that while the government in Washington is busy trying to take retirement benefits from US servicemembers these same people are busy buying military equipment that the Pentagon has repeatedly says it does not want.