« Charlie Daniels To Piers Morgan: “You Wouldn’t Last Five Minutes” In The Duck Dynasty Swamps | Main | Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas by Lloyd Marcus »
December 23, 2013
Paul Ryan Doubles Down on Cutting Veteran Pensions - Gone is the America-loving, enthusiastic VP nominee!
Paul Ryan Doubles Down on Cutting Veteran Pensions
House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has doubled down on his move to cut pensions for military veterans in a USA Today op-ed published Sunday.
In the op-ed, Ryan opens up by highlighting the CBO estimate that the deal he cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) would result in at least $20 billion in deficit reduction. “The Bipartisan Budget Act that Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and I drafted will soon become law,” Ryan wrote. “We think it's a small step toward fiscal discipline in Washington. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will reduce the deficit over the next ten years by over $20 billion. And unlike current law, it will provide much-needed relief to our already strained defense budget.”
As Breitbart News has reported, Ryan’s and Murray’s budget deal does not reduce the deficit. In fact, the deal raises the deficit by at least $15.5 billion because of a series of gimmicks that Ryan and Murray employed in the accounting of the deal -- namely, double counting of savings like the tactic which was employed in Obamacare, and the failure to include an estimate of the interest on the borrowed money for the first couple of years of increased spending. These are only a few among a series of other misleading statements Ryan has made about the deal.
The rest of Ryan’s op-ed is devoted to defending his decision to cut $6 billion worth of military pensions. "One part of the bill has become particularly controversial: the reduction in cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for working-age military retirees,” Ryan wrote. “The federal government has no greater obligation than to keep the American people safe and we must take care of the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line. For that reason, Congress is understandably hesitant to make changes to military compensation. But even hesitance has a cost." Citing the rising cost per service member since 2001, he then claimed that the need for reform is "undeniable."
Ryan cited and praised President Barack Obama’s Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel for his stance on the issue as well. Ryan wrote, “Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a combat vet himself, has said ‘that we can no longer put off military compensation reform. DOD's leadership, Chairman Dempsey, the service chiefs, the service secretaries, and myself, we all know that we need to slow cost growth in military compensation. Otherwise, we'll have to make disproportionate cuts to military readiness and modernization.’”
Ryan then detailed what he says the changes to military veterans’ pensions would specifically do to veterans:
Here's what the new law will do. We make no changes for those currently at or above age 62. This reform affects only younger military retirees. Right now, any person who has served 20 years can retire—regardless of age. That means a serviceman who enlists at 18 becomes eligible for retirement at 38. The late 30s and early 40s are prime working years, and most of these younger retirees go on to second careers.
Ryan characterized the change as a “small adjustment” in the next paragraph, even though he admitted it could affect veterans by as much as $100,000 or more over their lifetimes, depending on when they retire.
“All this reform does is make a small adjustment for those younger retirees,” Ryan wrote. “If they retire before age 62, the annual increase in their retired pay will be 1% less than the inflation rate. In other words, their benefits will grow every year—just at a slower rate. And when the retiree hits 62, DOD will recalculate the retired pay so that it will be where it would have been if he or she had received the full inflation adjustment every year since he or she retired." Ryan then calculated that, for a hypothetical serviceman who enlisted at 18 and retired at 38, his benefits would change under the deal from about $1.8 million to $1.7 million.
"This is a far more modest reform than other bipartisan proposals, some of which would have fully eliminated the adjustments for inflation for working-age retirees,” Ryan wrote.
Despite Ryan’s claims these cuts are a “small adjustment” for veterans, that approximately $100,000, in some parts of the country, could be a significant percentage of the entire size of a mortgage for a house. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, in October the average size of a home loan in America was $289,650. Ryan’s “small adjustment” cuts to veterans would be more than a third, then, of the average mortgage -- and in many cases, more than half of these veterans’ lifetime expenses for homeownership.
The Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) estimates that the cuts could mean as much as $124,000 in lost retirement income for veterans, which would be even more significant losses of opportunity in the future for veterans.
Wild Thing's comment.............
There is no possible way he can justify cutting veteran's benefits. None.
Posted by Wild Thing at December 23, 2013 12:45 AM
Comments
But, no congressional pay cut.
Posted by: TomR,armed in Texas at December 23, 2013 11:28 AM
"Ryan cited and praised President Barack Obama’s Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel for his stance on the issue as well. Ryan wrote, “Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a combat vet himself, has said ‘that we can no longer put off military compensation reform."
In this case yes we can. How about some welfare reform and/or Congressional and administration compensation reform.
Posted by: Bob A. at December 27, 2013 10:30 AM
