By Via Tom Ricks comes this power point presentation from the Defense Business Board at the Pentagon who is trying to take away the 20 year retirement benefits of future US servicemembers, but current servicemembers as well. Here are some of my thoughts of the various slides in this presentation.
- Slide 6: Military compensation for retirement is 10 times greater than the civilian sector. – It is a folly to compare military service to a job in the private sector that doesn’t have to worry about PT every morning, losing basic rights, forced to move continuously, combat deployments, etc. It would be more useful to compare US military retirement to that of other country’s that conduct the equivalent amount of work the US military does. If these foreign militaries have a 401K plan than what does their retention numbers look like? This would be real analysis instead of what is presented in this slideshow.
- Slide 7: Military retirement has little recruitment or retention benefits for the first 10 years of service. I would like to see their data to support this. I agree that he 20 year retirement doesn’t have much recruiting value as the GI Bill and bonuses for enlisting. However, between the 6-10 year mark is when personnel make the decision to stay in for a full 20 years. To claim that personnel with that amount of time in service do not take into heavy consideration the 20 year retirement is completely dishonest. When retaining people with that much time in service that was one of my biggest selling points to get people to stay in, especially for their wives that saw a light at the end of the tunnel that made all the time away from home and constant moving seem worth it.
- Slide 7: Current system does not compensate those in high risk situations or jobs. – Many of the MOS’s that deploy a lot and see combat are often given retention bonuses to stay in the Army compared to MOS’s that don’t deploy and see as much combat. Additionally people who deploy more receive hostile fire and family separation pay. So those areas are already getting more pay than a personnel clerk that never deploys.
- Slide 9: The cost of retirement is going to undermine future warfighting capabilities. – This statement is code for we need the retirement money savings to keep the acquisition programs that would otherwise be cancelled going. Also notice how causing a retention problem by getting rid of the 20 year retirement is not considered as part of undermining future warfighting capabilities.
- Slide 13: Making military retirement equivalent to the highest end private sector retirement plan. – Well if they want to make military retirement equivalent to the civilian sector how about we make the work equivalent as well? Should servicemembers be allowed to work 9-5 and paid overtime for any time over that? I could go on and on, but I’m sure everyone gets the point.
- Slide 14: On this slide you can see that they are leaving the option of going after the retirement benefits of current servicemembers. I wonder if a lawsuit could be initiated if this happens?
The bottom line after reading through through these slides it is clear the deck is being stacked against us serving in the military to take away our retirement system to free up money to keep the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) running. Look at the people serving in the Defense Business Board (DBB) making these recommendations, it is a who’s who of defense contractor interests and Wall Street hot shots that all have an interest in keeping the current MIC in place. Does anyone think that this board has made a similar slideshow to show the cost savings from cutting the Joint Strike Fighter?
It is also interesting how no other alternatives are offered. In the military it is always expected to provide leaders with multiple courses of action. Yet this board provides no other alternatives. Here are a few I can think of that is worthy of analyzing. What would be the cost savings to the Pentagon if for example 4 of the 10 US Army divisions were converted to the National Guard and reserves? The National Guard and reserves have clearly shown over the past decade that they can mobilize forces to serve overseas when needed. I would like to see an analysis done on this. What would be the cost savings to the Pentagon if the US government actually created a real national health care system instead of the woeful Obamacare? I would like to see how much cost savings other nation’s military’s are having due to better national health care systems that military retirees would be part of instead of relying on the military to provide it for them. I really think a smaller, well trained and equipped active duty force, a larger reserve & National Guard, combined with defense acquisition and contractor reforms would save the Pentagon huge amounts of money. These ideas combined with down the road real health care reform would save even more money.
I could go on and on, but it has been clear for the past few years how the fix has been in to cut military retirement benefits and now we are approaching the end game and the current budget crisis is a perfect opportunity for these people to do so. In my opinion ending the 20 year retirement would basically create a hollow force, which many on the left would like to see while keeping the MIC in place which many on the right would like to see as well. The only ones who get left out on this deal are US servicemembers which both the left and right claim to care about.
So what does everyone else think after reading through these slides?
She hasn’t seen...
4:58 pm on July 31st, 2011 1
Individual soldiers are easier to go after. Soldiers do not have PAC’s, powerful industry lobbyists, etc etc. It’s not much different in the private sector. Some companies are making a higher profit margin than cocaine dealers. Do you think the employees share any on that. Hell no. The executives pay it back to themselves and the big shareholders get a cut. In the meantime the company is always wringing its hands asking employees to sacrifice and save money.
Shame. I feel sorry for the military if they go to the 401k. Small investors make little money, if not lose money, in the stock market. Meanwhile banks charge 15-25, 30% interest on credit cards but pay out close to 0% on savings.
6:07 pm on July 31st, 2011 2
That 20yr retirement is a huge incentive to keep experienced people in after 10 years, otherwise people will take off the moment they can qualify for a high paying private sector job. Most retiree’s that I know of use that money as the mortgage on their house, or as a fall back paycheck should their after-service job go south.
7:11 pm on July 31st, 2011 3
I’m not in the military, but from what I know, the military gives you a basic salary but provides, housing, universal medical care, food, much of your clothing, etc., and continues to provide medical and a pension not unlike your basic salary after you’ve retired.
Is it that someone in Washington somewhere discovered that the US military is sorta 사회주의?
7:38 pm on July 31st, 2011 4
#3 Oh, its not that rosy. Except for a $200.00 or so allotment when I came on active duty, I paid for all my clothes. I got access to medical care, but given that I (and the vast majority of my compadres and their families) was young and healthy as a horse, it didn’t mean a whole lot. Most of the posts I was at had no on post housing available or I was on a long waiting list. Paid for all my food too. Yeah, I got extra money for food and for off post housing. But you know what? I daresay your income factors in cost of living for the area you live in (though not as blatantly). As to the “etc” I can’t really think of anything tangible. PX? Nah. Shopping in local towns tended to be more efficient and more often than not as cheap or cheaper than AAFES.
Having lived in the military and the civilian world, I would say both worlds are about evenly matched. I think changing the retirement system will tip the balance.
7:41 pm on July 31st, 2011 5
It’s not 사회주의, it’s the right thing to do.
7:44 pm on July 31st, 2011 6
I have an idea that would save stupid amounts of money. Cut the Airforce flying hour program in half (training sorties. You wouldnt belive how much money is spent for one sortie for one aircraft. One sortie is equal to about 20-50,000 usd and only last an hour).
Currently one base of full of 40 f-16′s would fly 40 sorties in one day. Figuring out the max and low prices for that one day of flying…800,000 usd – 2,000,000usd a day just for flying.
And they do this at least 5 days a week and btw, this is one base with 2 squadrons of f16′s…Its easy to see where cuts in the military can be made. While the government hide this fact and many others and make it seem like cutting retirement, or cut manning is the smart way to do things, there are better options.
Not saying training isnt important but at the levels currently flown by the AF, it could use a modest cut. And dont even get me started on how much money is wasted fixing this useless and broke ass jets that, so broke they leave me wondering how long they will stay in the sky….
7:45 pm on July 31st, 2011 7
#4 They give you a hundred dollars, they take back ninety nine.
7:54 pm on July 31st, 2011 8
7.
8:39 pm on July 31st, 2011 9
Retired and got a 50% cut in pay. No housing or food allotments when you retire.
Except for your basic issue of four uniforms, you pay for the rest. Once a year clothing allowance. Not a large sum there at all.
Barracks rooms are free if your single. If you don’t like them, then get married.
When I bought my first house, I had to sign papers stating that I understood, that owning a house did not entitle me to the extra monies for rent that I would get if I were married. Also that i was still expected to eat in the mess hall. No money for food.
I was still expected to maintain a barracks room just as if I lived there.
No one joined the Army for the pay Kushibo. Well, perhaps Officers do.
#7 pretty damn close
9:01 pm on July 31st, 2011 10
Medical insurance for military personnel and their young family members is probably a good financial bet. But does coverage continue, quality-wise, into retirement? Or does that depend on where you live in the US? How about outside the US?
Anyway, during the health care debate (and by “debate,” I mean two sides shouting past each other), I heard four groups frequently mentioned as having mandatory health care: the military, the over-65 crowd, residents of Hawaii, and the citizens of Massachusetts. I think that perked up the ears of some on the far right of the political spectrum; there’s now way they’re going to dismantle what MA and HI have, but they can replace Medicare with vouchers and dismantle military retiree benefits, I s’pose.
That’s purely speculative, and I could be wrong on that. It could be only Dems gunning for military retirement benefits for all I know.
Retired GI wrote:
I figured as much (I seriously considered joining as a way to get through med school without being massively in debt, hoping I would be stationed in Korea where Korean skills were needed; the folks I worked with at the 121 when I was a volunteer talked me out of it).
But would you say that some non-officers join for job security? I mean, you’re not going to be impoverished if you join the military and serve your twenty years, right?
If so, it would seem that this new system would be removing a lot of people from the pool of potential joiners, no?
10:32 pm on July 31st, 2011 11
they should also starting paying based on skill sets and not rank
for example an E6 telecom specialist installing fiber GB networks
get the same pay as an E6 grunt
dumb and no wonder why those people get out after receiving the training to make $$$$$ on the commercial side
4:55 am on August 1st, 2011 12
Romans 1:22 is it… “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”
5:05 am on August 1st, 2011 13
#10, Kushibo, how many civilian jobs require one to go into combat at a moment’s notice? Is it your belief that being in the military is equivalent to working at HP or Rite-Aid or Citibank? Ask the guys at Walter Reed… Oh that’s right, you can’t… They closed it down…
If you’re young enough, you could join the military and see the world! Maybe that would broaden your viewpoint… You know, being forcibly immersed in other cultures and such…
5:34 am on August 1st, 2011 14
Job Security? Well, I had an NCO when i first joined. We were close. He went to BNCOC (Must have this school to advance to the next rank). They smelled alcohol on his breath and he was kicked out of the Army. He was a good NCO too. That was 86/87.
These days it is more difficult to be kicked out. Once you make E-7, it takes an act of congress lose a rank. E-7 in support units takes around 17 years to achieve. So until then, you better keep your nose clean. (they don’t call E-6 the most disposable rank for no reason.) It is the lowest rank whereby you can be held accountable when something happens. Like a driving mission goes badly. Injuries or death involved. If and E-6 can be blamed, he WILL be blamed. Civilians want someone’s head? Better an E-6 than an Officer’s.
As for being Impoverished. If you retire as an E-7, have no mortgage or car note. Kids are gone. No alimony payments. You can do OK on the 50% of basic pay that you get. If you enlisted AFTER 1985 you get LESS than 50%. I forget what it went too. 35/40% of basic pay.
I had moneys from other sources as well. My mortgage is paid. I have no car payments. Single. So I do OK with a retirement check of around 17K a year.
But, I can’t say that doing my 20 years was a good BUSINESS decision. Given the job market, it might have been. I don’t think I’d advise anyone to do the same. If my retirement was all I had — add a wife and kids — life would start to look very sad very quickly.
I had young married troops that qualified for food stamps at FORT CAMPBELL in the 90′s.
But if you save up during those 20 years, buy a house and pay it off, stay single, you can do better than some.
6:17 am on August 1st, 2011 15
12. Romans 1:22 is it… “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”
No idea who that was for or what it pertained to in this thread but I have a couple pieces of unrelated good advice to add as well.
But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence. [spoken by Jesus] (Luke 19:27 NRS)
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalms 137:9, KJV)
/these don’t relate to the thread either. Just random quotes.
Cheers!
7:00 am on August 1st, 2011 16
The quote from Luke is part of an illustration Jesus was speaking – not a direct command or statement. (Even more than most, 19:27 is a verse within a context…)
Are you going to be the site’s Ricky Gervais?
7:10 am on August 1st, 2011 17
16. I guess I could do a lot worse! However, I’m not against fox hunting and bullfighting, and I have no problem if the Foot Guards want to use black bear fur for their caps.
7:15 am on August 1st, 2011 18
16. Why did you chose to only comment on one quote but strategically ignore the other one?
That’s amusing.
7:36 am on August 1st, 2011 19
Why so?
The 2nd is a bitter swipe at the Edomites who joyfully helped the Babylonians dash the heads of the Israelites onto stone. A swipe in a song written by an unknown captive in Babylonia.
I’m sure you were trying to get a discussion of the Bible going, right?
7:40 am on August 1st, 2011 20
Not at all. 12. Those weren’t bran muffins, Brainiac… made the original post. I merely decided to feed the fire.
8:49 am on August 1st, 2011 21
Not really sure the reason for the hostile response, Brainiac. I’m simply asking questions to surmise whether new plan would be detrimental or not, all the while showing respect for the unique circumstances of military service. In fact, on this topic I’ve written things such as THIS:
If you’re detecting hostility toward the US military in my comments, Brainiac, perhaps you’re misreading me. Or are you just doing a shoot-the-messenger thing since I’m asking questions about the benefits and retirement system as they now stand?
In the same comment I linked above, I asked some specific questions about the new proposal, which seem relevant here:
Note also that I referred to the military personnel as risking their lives, another sign that I don’t see going to Afghanistan as the equivalent of working at Rite-Aid. Sheesh.
Immersed in other cultures? While civilian work on military bases is obviously not same-same with actually being in the military itself, I remind you again that it was while working (as a volunteer) at a US military hospital that military personnel I was working side by side with were the ones who talked me out of joining.
In fact, including the one volunteer position when I was still in college, I have had three part-time work experiences at Yongsan Garrison. And I could count a fourth “job” if I included doing much of my off-post job tasks at the US Embassy Club Starbucks on South Post, where I typically spent three or four hours a day and had quite a lot of interaction with various military personnel.
8:55 am on August 1st, 2011 22
I’m pretty sure it was directed at me. Apparently, Brainiac has been reading every third word from every fourth post I’ve been writing on this subject to determine that I am ignorantly hostile toward the US military and thus deserving to be called out as “professing themselves to be wise” but actually a fool.
8:58 am on August 1st, 2011 23
Retired GI, thanks for the rundown on the job security thing.
I was examining it from a Compton point of view of people, based partly on people I know back in Compton who did join the military or considered it. For them, the ones who had their head down, stayed out of trouble, and did okay or well in school, the military did seem like a good bet for job stability during enlistment, and a regular income (and skill set) after retirement.
10:10 am on August 1st, 2011 24
Depends on your MOS. Tech fields are good after the service. Also depend on how long you stay in and your rank. Do 4 years and get out, you have a skill and experience. Do 20 and retire some will do ok but the age thing will entire the picture. Plus, you’ve been in charge. Maybe not in the civilian world, unless you do the contractor fields. Then you can make six figures. But you have to leave home again for that kind of pay. I may go that route later. Going for more college first. Have to have something that the thousands of others don’t.
The down side is not so much time driving my car and living in my house, while surfing the net. But I’m getting bored and still have some years left.
10:34 pm on August 1st, 2011 25
Now that the politicians in D.C. have made their wonderful (for them) backroom deal on the debt ceiling and (continued deficit) spending, U.S. military personnel are going to get royally screwed (yet again). Is the the timing of this military industrial complex attack on military retirement coincidental? Cannibals! Accompanied by the social engineering, more undeclared conflicts (current and prospective), etc., sponsored by this administration, will the American military institution be able to withstand these multi-axis fratricidal attacks? The free world wonders…
12:55 am on August 2nd, 2011 26
Kushibo while the Army will give you job stability, it also requires that you sacrifice what are usually the most productive years of your life (17 to 25). If your smart and put that time towards acquiring and mastering a marketable skillset, then afterwords you can make some serious money. But the majority of newly enlisted troops don’t know this and don’t really apply themselves. Add that to the fact that your basically guaranteed to get into a gun battle now, meaning you will be spending lots of time training on how to fight instead of training on how to fix a network issue. All that training time eats into what would normally be your study / personal development time. You can always tell who the dirt bags were by looking to see who started and finished a degree program while on active duty. Only a low OPTEMPO desk job with little to no responsibility would afford someone the time to load up on college courses. Anyone else simply wouldn’t have the guaranteed time to keep consistent participation and study, it would come and go in bursts.
The “free medical care” is frequently brought up, yet people don’t realize that it’s the Army that cause’s all those medical problems in the first place. The most common use of base medical resources is muscular-skeletal problems, basically stretched muscles, micro fractures, and abused joints. The knee surgery is free, but if you weren’t jumping on and off the back of tanks and bradly’s four to five days a week then you wouldn’t need the knee surgery. Same for all the back / shoulder surgery’s that are done. And these are all peacetime training incidents, when we dip into combat related injury’s things get really ugly. It’s the hard truth, joining the Army and you’ll be sacrificing your health, the longer you stay in the higher the chance of being left with a permanent injury. I got out after eight and a half years, and thankfully nothing permanent happened to be, but I still occasionally have shoulder issues when lifting heavy weights due to an injury I got early in my career. Since I’m in IT and 90% of my work is behind a screen pounding on keys, its not really effecting my quality of life. I’m one of the lucky ones. I’m positive some of the retiree’s can talk about permanent knee / back pain and accelerated arthritis.
The Army gives you yearly money for uniforms, and assuming you follow the directions then it’ll just about cover the cost. If your in a leadership position then your expected to buy extra stuff, you won’t get extra money. When I left I had nearly a full set of spare TA-50 that I had purchased from C&S over my career. Leaders do this because the stuff they give you at CIF is complete crap and you can’t afford to look ate up in-front of your soldiers. So you keep your own stuff, keep the CIF stuff in a bag for eventual turn in and you look good while doing it. Again the Army won’t give you any extra money for this.
Food and housing is another area. You’ll get BAS every month for food, most of it will be taken away and given to your units DFAC if your a meal card holder. Get senior enough and they’ll put you on “separate rations” where you get to keep your BAS but now must pay at the DFAC. Also get married or get authorized to life off base and you’ll get separate ration. If your single and below the rank of E7 then you’ll be living in single soldiers quarters (SSQ). For E4 and below this means sharing a room in the units barracks. For E5 and E6 this means sharing a living space (separate room, shared common area) in the Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ) also known as NCO Quarters. Single company grade officers live in the Bachelor Officer Quarters (BOQ), aka Officer Quarters. Those are like small apartments, usually with bathroom + kitchen + bedroom + living room. Base housing office controls the allocation of disposition of BEQ/BOQ, so you have more freedom room wise. If there is no space then you can get a statement of nonavailability which will entitle you to office base accommodations at single without dependents rate.
Now being in the SSQ’s suck, room inspections and GI parties are guaranteed to screw up your plans. Worse is that even if you an adult and keep your living space clean and orderly, someone other a$$ hat will be messy and mass punishment will happen. As an NCO it’s better, your own accommodations are inspect-able according to base housing regulations but your unit will never bother. But your still expected to attend those GI parties and “supervise” the soldiers doing the cleaning. Usually this means the E7′s taking off the moment 1SG leaves and having one or two E6′s stuck running everything with the junior NCO’s (E5 / E4 CPL). This turns into a chicken chase as the same dirty troopers are the ones who will try to sham and avoid work.
Now if your married, all this goes away. You’ll be assigned on-base housing or if non available then off base accommodations. This will be at a rate based on your rank and dependents. Enlisted under E7 get really shafted on this, expect to live in near ghetto like conditions outside most bases. The realtors are just as much sharks there are they are here in the ROK. They know how much your BHA is and your stuck going to them unless you want 30~60 min commute to PT every day. Married NCO’s will still be expected to attend the GI parties and other “soldier” functions, but often get a free pass to take off early due to “family obligations”. Being a single NCO living in the BEQ’s usually means your the one stuck doing all the after-hours “solder” stuff.
So, any more questions Kushibo about the life of a young soldier or young NCO?
5:34 am on August 2nd, 2011 27
#23: Kushibo, you’ve gotten a good run down on job security from the enlisted side. Here is the sad state of affairs for officers. While enlisted job security is iffy, at least they have contracts. Officers do not and in theory can be shown the door at the blink of an eye.
The military goes through periodic purges. On the officer side, this is usually dealt with at promotion time. Not getting promoted (known as being passed over) is a big deal for military officers. By regs, an officer failing two consecutive promotion boards is automatically out. Also, the chances of getting promoted on the next board are statistically low. I once saw a post Cold War Army Captain promotion board pass over 60% of those considered. When things get real hairy, services will hold retention boards. These are like promotion boards without promotions and the possibility of a one way ticket back to the civilian world.
Now you might be thinking the same thing happens in civilian employment. True enough. But there is a big difference. Your civilian employee will likely be networked to the hilt and hiring authorities will be keenly aware of local downsizings. Your vet is likely not networked at all and hiring authorities rarely have a clue about these purges. I’ve known a number of people caught up in this (former officers and enlisted alike) who had a difficult time gaining post service employment simply because those doing the hiring assumed anyone leaving the military after 8+ years in must have obviously done something wrong and is a total dirtbag.
8:26 am on August 2nd, 2011 28
I’m getting the impression here that some think that I’m dismissing the financial sacrifice made by military personnel, downplaying the very real risk of injury or death, or somehow supporting the new recommendations.
If so, I again ask you to read what I’ve written. In #21 I repeat questions I’d asked earlier, and I’ve flown up the flagpole impressions that non-military have about what few benefits there are to military service (besides the far less financially tangible aspect of serving one’s country in uniform) only as plausible reasons (NOT my own) why some might think that the GI situation is too generous to maintain.
If I’ve advocated anything, it’s that the current system should be maintained if it’s going to be better at attracting and keeping good military personnel.
6:47 pm on August 2nd, 2011 29
Its not specifically you Kushibo but rather the collective “you” involving all the left leaning non-military people who often make comments and opine on the Military. Their usually making those comments and freely giving their opinion from an ignorant position, and to service members or former service members it’s both revolting and disrespectful.
Military service is dramatically different then a civilian life, it’s so different that unless you’ve served you can’t possibly understand it. It doesn’t help that we have Hollywood making movies that portrays the Military as either incompetent, immoral or otherwise a bad institution. People watch these movies and get false impressions and so forth.
Also consider that less then 0.01% of the US population has served in the Armed Forces, that is statistically an incredibly small minority group. Yet that 0.01% has volunteered to maintain the freedom for other 99.99%, and yet people talk about things like “job security” and “medical benefits”, and that the 0.01% should somehow be happy that the majority “allow” them to have those benefits. Like the Military is some sort of social program and not a institution designed to teach young people how to kill for the purpose of defending the rest. And that institution has a certainty of death, not a possibility but a statistical certainty that someone will die.
People don’t volunteer to die for IBM, MS, Google or Apple. Well maybe for Apple, those guys can be zealots, could probably teach the Taliban a think or two. You don’t walk into a job interview agreeing that your willing to die for the success of the company. You do walk into the US Military saying your willing to die for the USA, you swear an oath to that effect several times.
7:44 pm on August 2nd, 2011 30
I think overall a huge point is that the middle class, that our parents and grandparents all worked so hard to create has been suffering under globalization. Hence the private sector pulling the pensions and replacing them with good ‘ol gambling… also known as the 401K racket.
Meanwhile the management continue to add on to their wages and benefits… And the wealth gap grows larger and larger… The only workers with decent pension and medical retirement benefits all work for the government, so everyone else is now pissed off at them instead of realizing that they should be angry at their own companies for selling them out. I hope the rich can build enough fences to keep all the poor out…
7:52 pm on August 2nd, 2011 31
Maybe a Korean job interview…
8:13 pm on August 2nd, 2011 32
someotherguy wrote:
I understand your frustration (though I think it should also be shared a little with the people of any political stripe who egg on military actions like Iraq without ever intending to join up themselves and fight), but that is not me. I have been mostly asking questions, and I’ve repeatedly provided a not-been-in-the-military disclaimer, fully aware that my knowledge of the US military is all second hand at best. I would not presume to know stuff like that; in fact, one of the primary reasons I frequent this site is to expand my knowledge base about USFK specifically and the US military in general.
At the same time, though, I’m not completely out of the loop. For a number of years I’ve worked a total of three different jobs at Yongsan Garrison, with lots of exposure to military personnel’s stories of what’s up where. I probably know more than, say, a typical English teacher fed a year-long diet of AFKN info spots.
Rest assured, most of my impression of the military comes from (a) my own interactions with people at Yongsan, (b) a steady diet of the PS&S for ten years, and (c) various relatives who have been or still are career military (I’m guessing one or two ROK Drop regulars may have served with a cousin or two).
I think you mean 1%, or 0.01, but not 0.01%, which would be 1 in 10,000, or a military of 30,000 people… really approaching an “Army of One.”
Just so we’re clear, that wasn’t my attitude at all. And though I know some civilians see it that way (on both left and right), I don’t know how common that is. In fact, I think there is a large segment of the population that feels that retirees and those discharged from the military are underserved in terms of military care. But that could be because I’m in a health-related field where this is talked about more often, by people who are especially concerned about that kind of thing.
Blame Hollywood for that. People watch Rambo, Band of Brothers, Flags of Our Fathers, Black Hawk Down, Hurt Locker, and even Deadliest Catch and place themselves in the action, consciously thinking, “Yeah, I could do that,” and then subconsciously acting as if they have.
I hear you. I have great admiration for anyone who puts on the uniform.
BTW, I did agree to jump out of a moving truck carrying a 40-lb package for UPS.
2:07 am on August 3rd, 2011 33
Population of the USA as of 2009
307,006,550
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+the+usa#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en
Size of total Active Duty US Military in 2009
1,445,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces#Personnel_in_each_service
1,445,000 / 307,006,550 = 0.0047
So less then 0.001% Active Duty
Reserve in 2009
833,616
National Guard in 2009
467,587
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
Total US Military (Active, Reserve and Guard) in 2009
2,746,203
2,746,203 / 307,006,550 = 0.0089
Still less then 0.001% of the population on Active Duty in 2009.
This of course doesn’t take into account past service members, those numbers have proven difficult to come by. I would put it around 4~5% of the US population as currently serving or previously served for at least three years (36 months, required for most VA benefits).
That is an incredibly small minority. And that minority is what allows the vastly larger majority to enjoy the freedoms and rights of the USA.
10:10 pm on August 3rd, 2011 34
Someotherguy:
You have to multiply your quotient by 100 to make it a percentage. It’s 0.89% of the total US population that is currently serving on active duty, in the reserves, or in the National Guard. Per the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2009 there were 21.9 million veterans living, meaning that about 7.1% of the entire U.S. population has served in the military. 24% of the US population is under 18 years of age, or about 74 million people. Subtract them, and you have about 9.2% of the adult population of the U.S. either in the military or having served in it previously.
9.2% is a minority, to be sure. Whether it is an “incredibly small minority” is another question. I agree with your general points about the burden of military service, but you need to get your data right. I learned all of this in about five minutes using the magic of the Internet and a calculator.
12:37 am on August 4th, 2011 35
Yep my calculate was supposed to do the x100 adjustment for me for percentages, it didn’t and there’s no way to go back and edit the above post.
And you do not subtract minors, they are still part of the US population, they still hold citizenship.
And read again what I wrote,
“I would put it around 4~5% of the US population as currently serving or previously served for at least three years (36 months, required for most VA benefits).”
Emphasis on the 36 month requirement. This is where the definition of “veteran” is relevant. The VA defines it as 36 months of honorable service, the requirement to qualify for your benefits. The US Census Bureau defines veteran as anyone serving more then three months and no requirement for honorable service. Further I stipulated people who volunteered their service, as in not including draftees from the Vietnam era (no disrespect towards them, but they didn’t volunteer). That is what makes it hard to calculate out.
The proper numbers should be,
So less then 0.1% Active Duty
Less then 0.89 AD / NG / AR
And then that 5% or so figure for total, although it’s hard to nail down due to the status of the Vietnam vets and the different in how the Census Burro classified “Veteran”.
2:33 pm on August 4th, 2011 36
I have started a petition against this. My husband is 11 years in and has been working towards that 20 year retirement… Please help me in supporting this and spreading the word… I have contacted congressman, senators, I have gone to great lengths to address this and I will continue to fight this fight but it’s easier to fight a fight when you have an army. Please, go and sign my petition. http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-radical-retirement-overhaul-for-military-servicemembers?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=own_wall
3:39 pm on August 4th, 2011 37
I signed Ashley. Posted the link on my FB as well.
4:45 pm on August 4th, 2011 38
Can an army of lowly petitioners challenge the reign of anonymous corporate SuperPACs? Democracy had been sold off and owned by a select few for some time now.
6:21 pm on August 4th, 2011 39
I can understand if they want to change the retirement system for “new” recruits, but those already in should be grandfathered into the system that was present when they signed up.
The only reason I can possibly see for them trying to include current soldiers is if their looking at a big RIF coming up and want to reduce incentives for seniors to stay in.
4:47 am on August 6th, 2011 40
JoeC, to answer you’re question: Not with a loser attitude like the one you expressed. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
To put it another way, who would have thought that a lowly group of traitors would be able to beat the British Army during the American Revolution?
Someotherguy is correct. I feel a RIF a coming.
6:58 am on August 6th, 2011 41
JoeC discounts the Tea Party…
Kushibo still feels upset over Iraq but not Libya…
Same song, same verse…
7:03 am on August 6th, 2011 42
What’s the next step then? The last time veterans marched on Washington over a pay dispute it didn’t turn out well.
1:23 pm on August 6th, 2011 43
setnaffa wrote:
Yup. Iraq and Libya same-same. Except in degree, duration, cost, loss of life, etc., etc.
I’m much more disappointed in when (before we had things under control in Afghanistan and before we really had a chance to scrutinize the slam-dunk information) and how we went into Iraq (with a force too small to effectively control the country and stem an insurgency after defeating Saddam Hussein), much more than that we went into Iraq.
I’m glad Saddam Hussein is out of power. He was a destabilizing force to a very high degree, though fencing him in under Bush41 and Clinton seemed to go a long way toward mitigating that, at pennies on the dollar compared to Iraq War 2.
1:31 pm on August 6th, 2011 44
31 Navy Seals killed today. Why are still there?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/06/afghan-president-31-americans-killed-in-helicopter-crash/
2:56 pm on August 6th, 2011 45
setnaffa, you condemn the attack on Libya. How about the attack on Iraq? Do you condemn that, too?
5:07 pm on August 6th, 2011 46
“31 Navy Seals killed today. Why are still there?”
No, Denny… the question is…
“Why were we there to begin with?”
10:49 pm on August 6th, 2011 47
@43
“I’m glad Saddam Hussein is out of power.”
Since we had to compromise so many values along the way to getting that done, like enhanced interrogations, we could have saved about a trillion dollars with a single bullet to the head.
11:32 pm on August 6th, 2011 48
47 Joec You’re just sad. I haven’t decided if you are unable to understand or simply too liberal to try. Either way, I’m sure it would be more productive to laugh at you than to attempt reason. Since Liberals know nothing of reason, clinging to their emotions instead. Did you forget that Clinton had the first opportunity to deliver “a single bullet to the head”. If he had, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. Talk about compromising your values! I’m actually starting to think that coming here is not the best use of my time. ChickenHead is not enough to offset the bleeding of the liberals on this site. Close, but not quite enough. This blog is starting to sound more and more like (The View) with Whoopi and the other Liberal Women. But perhaps that is the desired effect.
5:41 pm on August 9th, 2011 49
the real kicker in this debate is the number of folks with 20 years in that will probably get out in full force once this proposal is actually considered. I have 11 years in and the chances of me staying for another 9 (with the risk of deploying AGAIN) would not be worth it. I rather find a civilian job somewhere, establish myself, and bank in 9 years I can have equity in a house (no more rentals), a steady career, and not worrying about my kids separation anxiety any longer.
10:51 am on August 12th, 2011 50
I have talked to many Soldiers, NCO’s and fellow Officers and one of the big concerns is our contract. Every Soldier today signed a contract with the US Army with an agreement for a retirement at 20 years. If the government can make this change and turn around and tell the Soldiers to just deal with it, then what is next. What else will they change in our contract and then turn around and say we are the government deal with it, what’s the point of the contract.
The proposal mentions several times a comparison between the Military and the Civilian work force. Well, show me a Civilian job in which the worker is gone training for up to 3 to 6 months total throughout the year and then when complete with training deploys for up to a year, not to mention during that year deployment there is a large group of people trying as hard as they can to kill you. Then God willing the member makes it home after the deployment, and 70% of the time must pack up his/her family and move them somewhere else. The constant PCS moves every two to three years for a Soldier is extremely hard on the family, the children must move schools and make new friends, the spouse must attempt to find a new job which in itself is difficult due to the employer knowing he or she will be leaving within two to three years. This type of constant movement for the Service member makes it almost impossible for a spouse to generate any type of retirement.
A Service member after 20 years of service is most of the time completely broken, they have bad knees, backs, ankles and hearing loss to mention a few. All of these problems are due to 20 years of dealing with Combat, explosions, shooting weapons, foot marches, jumping out of airplanes, and daily running and other physical activities. After a 20 year Service obligation the average 40 year old Soldiers body is worn down and more closely related to a 65 year old Civilian.
The proposal makes a statement that a Soldier E-1 thru E-4 under the new plan can make up to $20,000 if they invest 16.5% of their pay for four years. I have been a Company Commander for 33 months and I do not know one E-1 thru E-4 who can afford to deposit 16.5% of their pay and still be able to survive financially. The proposal also states that the old plan is unfair to all who do not retire because they receive nothing. Like I said earlier all Soldiers voluntarily sign a contract and understand what they are getting into. But, when it comes down to it, a Soldier receives many things, the Soldier receives to mention a few, discipline, an understanding of self worth, team work, equal opportunity training, sexual harassment training, job experience, respect from the community, credibility from civilian companies, and the military GI Bill for future education. Any person who joins the military and leaves under honorable conditions, leaves as a better person and will be a great contributor to the Civilian community and work force.
To say that anyone leaving the military before 20 years gets nothing is not only wrong but an uneducated statement. The US Service member is a Professional and the 20 year retirement is not just deserved but owed due to the contract we signed. A professional athlete provides entertainment to the public and they make millions, a Service member is a professional and provides protection and freedom to the public and we make pennies but we do not complain. If they take away our retirement they take away any incentive for the career Soldier to stay and they take away what all Service members have worked for, planned for, fought for, and many others have died for. Why would anyone join the Military as a Career when they can join a safer Civilian job with the same benefits? The US Armed Forces is 1% of the US population, I’m sure we can find, and save, several Trillion dollars if we tap into the other 99% who earned their freedom thru the Military’s sacrifice.
12:29 pm on August 15th, 2011 51
[...] military pension system by the Defense Business Board. You can read an article about the changes here (the DBB PowerPoint is linked from here) or here. I’m not going to go into detail on my [...]
4:20 am on August 23rd, 2011 52
I had a chance to view the task group findings on Modernizing the Military Retirement System, dated July 21 2011. As usual some key issues were not addressed regarding the retirement of National Guard and Reserve members. We have been fighting this issue for years and everyone continues to evade this issue. The fact that we are part of the strategic force and no longer a reserve force must be addressed, especially when it comes to our retirement now. We face multiple deployments and long tours of active duty assignments in order to support the war fight. It is unfair that individuals like my self who have over 20 years of service cannot retire and receive an immediate income from our retirement. We fight side by side with our active component counterparts and should receive an immediate retirement just as they do. We have stepped up to the plate, and now its time for congress and our military leaders to address this issue. I find it hard to believe that National Guard or Reserve Members on your board did not ensure that this issue was addressed. Thank you for your time and support addressing this issue.
8:04 am on January 11th, 2012 53
best programs…
[...]Briefing Slides On How the Defense Business Board Plans To Cut Military Retirement | ROK Drop[...]…