As Washington looks to squeeze savings from once-sacrosanct entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, another big social welfare system is growing as rapidly, but with far less scrutiny: the health and pension benefits of military retirees.
First, lets get the definition of entitlement:
Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
It seems that if the Super Committee cannot come to agreement- that military retirement benefits are on the table as part of the Defense cuts mandated by the debt ceiling agreement.
I never thought of my military retirement benefits , Social Securtity and Medicare were entitlements. They are,only in the sense that we are entitled to them because they are EARNED benefits.
BY Contract
Retirement benefits are earned by time and foregoing the more lucrative private sector job market. Social security and Medicare are EARNED entitltements because they are paid for by all who are eligible to use them. No SS without 40 quarters of work. No Medicare without your contribution both before and during your medicare years.
Those critics also argue that under the current rules, 83 percent of former service members receive no pension payments at all — because only veterans with 20 years of service are eligible. Those with 5 or even 15 years are not, even if they did multiple combat tours. Such a structure would be illegal in the private sector, and a company that tried it could be penalized, experts say.
“It cries out for some rationalization,” said Sylvester J. Schieber, a former chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board. “Why should we ask somebody to sustain a system that’s unfair by any other measure in our society?”
But within military circles, and among many members of Congress, the benefits are considered untouchable. Veterans groups and military leaders argue that the system helps retain capable commissioned and noncommissioned officers.
And having volunteered to put their lives at risk, those people deserve higher-quality benefits, supporters argue. The typical beneficiary, they add, is not a general but a retired noncommissioned officer, with an average pension of about $26,000 a year.
“The whole reason military people are willing to pursue a career is because after 20, 30 years of extraordinary sacrifice, there is a package commensurate with that sacrifice upon leaving service,” said Steven P. Strobridge, a retired Air Force colonel who is the director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America, which is lobbying against changes to the benefits.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Even military members who do not collect any retirement benefits support this system. If we change the Military retirement benefit- how do we keep the experienced NCO, or mid grade officer? Even in peacetime, the military life is a difficult one. Moving every 3-5 years, long training deployments, unaccompanied tours to remote areas. Yet these are the people charged with maintaining and caring for the force.
Let's not make this easy for those who will attempt to change this system. Military veterans and reitrees are a small part of the population-and tend not to vote.That has to change. If we don't make our voices heard this will happen. It already happened to medical benefits. We were promised free medical care- forever. Now we pay for Tricare Prime.
Try a pre-emptive strike. Remind them that supporting the troops means more than a yellow ribbon. Call your Congresscritter and Senators. E mail, snail mail, whatever. Lets make our voices heard about this.