Panetta suggests current service members may be spared from proposed pension cuts

[RamboLiberal]

Source: CBS News

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Tuesday suggested that current service members might be spared some proposed deep cuts to the military's generous retirement plan .

CBS News reported Monday that the current military retirement system is a potential target for budget cutters and the Pentagon may begin offering a 401(k) style savings plan instead of the defined benefit plan now in place.

Asked about the report at a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Panetta said "no decisions have been made," but "you've got to look at everything on the table." Panetta was interrupted by applause from audience members at the National Defense University when he suggested current service members might be exempt from changes.

"You have to do it in a way that doesn't break faith...with our troops and with their families," he said, "if you're going to do something like this, you've got to think very seriously about grandfathering in order to protect the benefits that are there."



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20093117-503544.html?tag=stack

[MineralMan]

1. Morons. How are they going to recruit career-minded people

with that kind of attitude and program? Never mind the current people. Who'd join up in the future?

Again, morons!

[former9thward]

23. If the Defense budget is going to be cut where is it going to come from?

The lion's share of the defense budget is not guns and ammo, it is personnel costs. Pensions are a big part of that. If we are not just sloganeering about cutting defense then personnel costs must be cut and cut big.

[MineralMan]

24. What I'd do is shut down all foreign bases not actively

involved in immediate defense of something. All of them. You're right. It is in personnel and operating costs. Fly all the planes back to the states, along with all personnel. Hand over the keys to the bases to the government of the country, and leave all ground-based equipment right there. It's all sunk costs anyhow. Distribute the personnel to US bases or other bases kept open and retire people who are eligible for retirement to make room for those who aren't. If there's still a personnel surplus, deal with it. Immediately begin withdrawing forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and handle that in the same way. Return all NG forces to their home areas and remove them from active status.

Then, engage all retained military in training and other preparedness missions. Plan a reduction in forces down to a level that provides a ready force capable of rapid deployment for limited operation and for national defense.

Scale back naval operations to only that which is essential and necessary.

Then, plan on never getting involved in anything like Iraq or Afghanistan again. Period. If force is needed elsewhere in the world, do it in a different way than the disastrous way we've done it now for too many decades. No more long-term peacekeeping and nation-building - ever.

You asked. that's my answer.

[former9thward]

26. I think those are good suggestions.

I wish I knew what the savings would be if all those were implemented.

[MineralMan]

27. I wish I knew, too. It's hard to come up with numbers for the

cost of all that. I suspect that we'd all be shocked at how much our foreign military installations and operations cost on an annual basis. I don't think we're supposed to know, to tell you the truth.

[No Elephants]

35. True, but there are also things like a $500 million building in Iraq.

And building the same bridge over and over again.

IOW, contractor costs are a significant part of the budget as well, as are veteran's benefits.

I don't recommend cutting down on veteran's benefits, but I do recommend cutting down on the number of sick and disabled veterans by changing our policies at long last.

Besides, "guns and ammo" seems a bit disingenous when describing military purchasing. We build very expensive aircraft, ships, missles, etc.--and then we overpay insanely for many things, too.

The budget process also encourages waste. Your budget for the next fiscal year is based on what you spent the prior fiscal year. So, the way to protect your fiefdom is to spend like crazy.

I know a soldier who worked in the library at Fort Hamilton, which is Brooklyn, NY--an easy subway ride from one of the best public libraries in the world. In June of one year, he was told to order every book on a list from M to Z.

Turned out the head of the library felt that he had not spent enough that fiscal year and did not have enough time before June 30 to spend any more money wisely.

I'm guessing working inside the Pentagon is pretty cushy too, as is being brass on any base.

So, yes, there are plenty of ways to cut military costs.

[No Elephants]

34. Blackwater.

[TwilightGardener]

2. They're really asking for it. You don't stay in for a long career if your

big reward will be a fucking 401k that will ultimately tank along with everyone else's. They're not going to have anybody stay past 8 years. What idiots. Edit to add: Third time I'll say it--I MISS GATES. Panetta is a moron and Obama's biggest mistake.

[Alhena]

4. So we're going to have China and Russia invading the US?

We could have a military 1/10th its current size and be perfectly safe. Having the ability to stick our nose into whatever conflict strikes the fancy of right-wingers at a given time is not the same thing as true national security.

[TwilightGardener]

5. You're bringing up apples and oranges. This is about career NCO's and

officers. The ones who stay in long enough to be experts in their fields and have learned leadership.

[No Elephants]

41. Learning to keep your job is often the opposite of leadership.

[southernyankeebelle]

12. This plan was discussed even when Gates was there. I read it a while

back at Military.com... As a wife of a retired soldier I can tell you no one will like this plan. Why on earth would anyone would stay in for a 401k when they can get a job out the outside without getting killed.

[TwilightGardener]

14. I think the study was being done while he was there. But Panetta

seems to be RUNNING with it, talking about "grandfathering in", etc. As if it's going to happen. This, combined with other things he's said, convinces me he's an ass and not up to the job.

[No Elephants]

42. Wonder what the common link between Gates and Panetta is?

[No Elephants]

36. Third time you're saying you miss Gates?

[The Magistrate]

3. Beautiful, Ma'am: Two-Tier pay On A Firing Line, With Live Ammunition....

If you set down to think of a better way to dissolve unit cohesion, and keep sergeants looking over their shoulders, it would be hard to imagine what it could be.

The money boyos are capable of bulling this through, though.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. That's been going on for ten years now

Blackwater mercenaries make 10+ time as much as your average marine/infantryman, and they don't have to worry about being court-martialed for killing civilians.

[The Magistrate]

10. Generally, Sir, They Do Not Fight In the same Unit, However

If this is what is done, in every platoon there will be men at the same grade with different remuneration.

[cstanleytech]

6. I support the republicans voting yes to this!!!!!!

And after they vote yes I shall crack open a bottle of the bubbly (and I dont even drink alcohol) in a pre celebration of the evisceration I predict will happen to them in the 2012 election because of the backlash.

[former9thward]

22. You think no Democrats will support this?

It is being proposed by a Democratic administration. You think there would be no backlash?

[cstanleytech]

28. Did I misread it or was this proposal coming from the Defense Business Board?

You know, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Business_Board

[former9thward]

29. Regardless of who it is coming from Panetta is the public face of it.

He is the one out there promoting it.

[cstanleytech]

30. Hes still allowed to express his opinion you know

that doesnt mean the president will agree or support it in the end so I'm just gonna continue to hope the republicans decide to grab that 3rd rail themselves and commit seppuku.

[No Elephants]

38. People like Panetta don't simply express their personal opinion publicly.

[cstanleytech]

45. yes, they do actually do so occasionally.

In this case though its just one of the ideas they are tossing around and one which I hope the hope the majority of dems in congress will vote against if it goes from being just an idea to a real proposal because whoever votes yes will be left holding a live hand grenade and I am hoping that someone is the republicans.

[No Elephants]

37. After Panetta is long forgotten, Obama will be the name attached to this.

When we are talking Executive Branch, the buck really does stop at the desk of the Chief Executive of the United States.

[_ed_]

46. Panetta is a Democrat...appointed by Obama

How is this a Republican policy?

[Kelvin Mace]

7. That's cool

but hiring Blackwater as your full-time military is going to cost 10-12 times as much as you are paying now.

[haele]

13. But if you hire mercenaries, you don't have to worry about their benefits.

Xe or Dynacorp, et all, will pay them, and cover their 401ks, and their medical costs, and would just as happily forget the merc ever worked for them once his contract was terminated. No rules, no regulations, no UCMJ, no pension, no long-term care, and a legal department that will protect the company from any wrongful termination, endangerment, or workman's comp suits after the "employee" has gotten messed up doing their job. And that same legal department can turn the merc's own record against him or her if there's a screw up in the field...
And the taxpayer's dollars will just keep coming in on the same level as they would have if the soldiers and sailors were G.I. - just now, the money is finding it's way into shareholder and board room pockets and into bonuses, instead of into the pockets of family members and communities.

Win-win for the security corporations.

Haele

[sulphurdunn]

21. But you very much have to worry

about their loyalty.

[haele]

25. Yup, many Empires have found that out the hard way....

The "think tanks" and "advisory groups" that are discussing this sort of thing are obviously more greedy than smart.

Human motivations never change. History is a cycle whereby, while the names, technology, and fashions may change, the motivation for catestrophic human events will keep repeating.

Haele

[No Elephants]

39. The loyalty of a mercenary is to money and to whoever pays it to them.

[denverbill]

9. I saw this posted over at Freeperville.

I expected those freaks to support this wholeheartedly since they love privatization of anything. They almost universally condemned it.

Yet, they want to privatize Social Security.

I'm sure this will make a great issue for Republicans in 2012 though.

[shanti]

31. their disconnect

is mindboggling. :crazy:

[No Elephants]

43. No surprise. They love military and fetuses unconditionally. They don't specialize in principles

and they excel at double standards and doublethink.

Those traits seem to be common to the right.

[global1]

11. What Good For The Geese Is Good For The Gander......

if they "got to look at everything on the table" then they should adjust the current retirement system of Congress.

We need to get this meme going. If they are going to mess with the military - then do the same for Congress.

[awoke_in_2003]

15. we have no problem...

pumping out more aircraft carriers, but veterans pensions are fair game.

[awoke_in_2003]

16. "everything on the table"...

why does that term always seem to mean "screw the little guy"?

[Donnachaidh]

17. This is the same song and dance they are telling SS recipients

I'll bet dollars to donuts it's total bullshit. It's just a way to keep people from rising up.

[Trillo]

18. We'll gladly pay you today for a hamburger tomorrow?

So, workers prepay for tomorrow's big hamburger, but when tomorrow arrives all that's left are mini-burgers or worse?

It makes (malicious) sense that current service members might be spared proposed deep cuts (insert "applause" in script), as they're currently working and prepaying for tomorrow's promised big hamburger! The (fractal) pattern is consistent with the pay now and "fail to deliver promise later" scam.

[onethatcares]

19. so they want to put it into the casino on wall street and

whenever the hedgefund managers and moneychangers need a quick fix, viola, instant military furnished cashola.

jeeez, the hits just keep on coming don't they?

[Fuddnik]

20. The New American Way.

I'm not going to fuck you, but watch me fuck that other guy behind you, tee-hee.

[KeepItReal]

33. +1

and the other guy ain't paying attention, anyway

[yurbud]

32. this is an old trick from union-busters: divide and conquer. In this case, separate old timers from

newcomers, and hope that enough of the old-timers are selfish enough to not care that there younger comrades will be even more likely than them to live out their golden years under a bridge.

That a Democrat is proposing this is shameful.

If they want to save money on defense, go after the big ticket toys, corrupt bidding, contract padding and so forth.

[No Elephants]

40. +1

[Hydrated]

44. Bloody RIGHT they should be "spared!"

Bilge like this makes me want to puke! Utterly disgusting to even consider cutting those pensions!