Diet COLA: Murray-Ryan Budget Targets Military Retirees

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Photo by Gage Skidmore

On Wednesday, I received an email from the Air Force Sergeant’s Association (AFSA) CEO and in response posted this statement on my Facebook page: “Air Force Sergeant’s Association posted Paul Ryan proposed a cut of 1% in military retiree COLA pay each year until the retiree reaches 62. So, for me, that would be a 16% cut. I have never taken welfare or any other handout. All of my retirement is taken in taxes already. I’m interested to hear how much was slashed from the handout programs that didn’t require the recipients to give at least 20 years of their lives.” I received several requests to do an article and given the serious nature of this budget proposal and its devastating impact on all the military retirees that have served honorably and live on fixed incomes, I felt the need to heed that call.

From my earliest years as a child, I watched my father put on his Navy uniform and serve long hours to defend our nation, sometimes deploying to remote areas for several months at a time. Growing up on a military base instilled in me a desire to serve so I signed up for the Air Force while I was still a senior in high school. I joined when I was 18 years old and I gave 20 years and 2 months of my life to my country. In return, like my dad before me, I was promised a retirement benefit commensurate to my time in service and the rank I obtained which was Senior Master Sergeant (E-8.)

I joined the Air Force in April, 1986, and even at that time, Congress had their scalpels out and they were cutting benefits. One benefit that I missed out on by two days was having the 9 months of my delayed enlistment count toward my time in service. In 1990, the military changed the structure of the retirements and offered a buyback for those that served at least 15 years. Members were allowed to take a lump sum taxed at a 28% rate in exchange for a lower monthly retirement. I don’t know if that is still going on. A few years after that change, it was proposed to lower the retirement percentage from 50% of base pay after 20 years of service to 40% of base pay. But, in the past, these changes came with a grandfathered clause.

The Bipartisan Budget Act passed by the House on December 12, 2013, is the one put together behind closed doors by Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Paul Ryan that will cut the retiree benefits effective 2015 with no grandfathered clause. Under their proposal, each year a retiree will lose 1% of the adjusted Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), an amount calculated to keep up with the Consumer Price Index, until the age of 62. At that time, COLA would be readjusted to the current level. What does this mean for the average retiree? A significant loss. With the exception of the Army, no other service allows enlisted members to serve until they are 62 years old. The average person will enlist between the ages of 18-25 years old. Typically, most career military personnel make it to the 20 year mark of their careers. Some, if they make their rank in time, may serve up to 30 years. This being the case, most people retire between the ages of 38-55. This proposal will have a serious negative impact on all of them.

The following bullet points were taken directly from the House website:

– We make sensible reforms for civilian and military retirement programs.
– On the civilian side, we ask future retirees to contribute a little bit more — still well below what’s common for state and local government employees—so taxpayers don’t have to pick up the entire tab.
– And for younger military retirees, we trim their cost-of-living adjustment just a bit. It’s a modest reform for working-age military retirees.
https://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364040

In an Air Force Times article, Retiree COLAs targeted in bipartisan budget deal, written by Rick Maze, he quotes the following: “To us, this seems like an odd time to decide we need to limit COLAs. Why do it now when you have a commission just formed to study retired pay and make recommendations on changes?” said Michael Hayden, government relations director of the Military Officers Association of America, referring to the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Committee that has just started its work on pay reform. Part of the commission’s order from Congress is to come up with changes in retired pay that do not harm anyone now in the military, with cuts aimed at people who enter service in the future, Hayden said. The budget agreement violates the spirit of grandfathering current service members and retirees, he said.

This budget is a direct attack on the military and its veterans and still manages to increase spending. And don’t forget, in addition to this, just three short weeks ago the Secretary of Defense proposed closing all stateside commissaries. So think about it retirees and future retirees, you’re supposed to give up retirement you’ve earned and a benefit that saves you 15-20% a month on groceries. For many of you living on fixed incomes, that can be the difference between eating and not eating.

Ryan defended the cuts. “We think it is only fair that hardworking taxpayers, who pay for the benefits that our federal employees receive, be treated fairly as well,” he said. That sounds good on the surface, but I regress to my first paragraph. My retirement is taxed and my retirement is not enough to live on independently. My husband is the primary provider of the family. At the end of the year, my entire retirement is taken back in taxes so I suppose and can just add 1% to that amount in 2015. Thank you so much Congress.

If you’re reading this article, you still have the chance to have your voice heard. This legislation will be voted on in the Senate next week and momentum is growing against it. This is your chance to make a difference, contact your Senators and let them know how you feel about the Bipartisan Budget Plan. Call the Senate switchboard and ask to be directed to your Senator’s office at 202-224-3121. While you’re on the phone with them, ask how much foreign aid was slashed. Remember, without our veterans who have sacrificed much, we would not have the freedoms we do today.
________________________________
Julie Gillette is a retired Air Force Senior Master Sergeant and disabled veteran currently living in Fairbanks, Alaska. She is active in Alaska state politics.

Budget Deal a Step Backward: Opposing View

Photo Credit: T.J. Kirkpatrick, Getty Images

Photo Credit: T.J. Kirkpatrick, Getty Images

While imperfect, the sequester has proved to be an effective tool in reducing base discretionary spending. Nonetheless, conservatives have expressed a willingness to alter the budget caps established by the 2011 debt ceiling deal in exchange for immediate and substantive structural reforms that significantly reduce spending and address the real drivers of our debt.

Unfortunately, the budget agreement struck by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray is a step backward:

First, it represents an immediate increase in federal spending. Under the deal, discretionary spending would rise to $1.012 trillion in 2014 and $1.014 trillion in 2015, a $63 billion total increase (though it does little to provide a real and sustained fix for President Obama’s mismanagement of defense). This is a significant achievement for the president, who believes that government spending is a panacea to America’s economic woes.

Read more from this story HERE.

As Obama Turns: How the President’s Political Fortunes Predict his Economic Message

Photo Credit: Aude Guerrucci/Getty Images

Photo Credit: Aude Guerrucci/Getty Images

When President Obama said this week that ending income inequality was “this generation’s task,” his aides noted he was consciously echoing themes he’d raised in a speech two years earlier in Osawatomie, Kan. The trail actually goes back even farther than that. The president has given several significant economic speeches since becoming a national politician. The first was a commencement address at Knox College in 2005, five months after he joined the Senate. Two others include a September 2007 speech he gave at Nasdaq and one he gave three years ago Friday at Forsyth Technical Community College.

All five of these speeches have been big, strained for historical sweep, and touched on a central theme: the need for government intervention at a time when the economy has gotten out of whack. But they are not all the same in emphasis. In those eight years, Obama has oscillated between two kinds of economic messages based on his most pressing political needs. When appealing to business interests and independent voters, he has addressed the need for collective action to compete in the global marketplace. When appealing to his party’s base, he has addressed the need for collective action to right the inequities of income inequality.

In 2005 at Knox College, Obama called on the students to do more than strive to make a buck when they graduated. Instead, he called on them to contribute to a national cause: upgrading the economy for the modern age. He told the story of the previous times America had decided to repair the inequities in the market. After the Civil War and during the New Deal, lawmakers set the rules for commerce and the nation thrived.

Obama said that this was a moral good, but he had a larger point: It was a competitive necessity. His speech was about global competition, not inequality. America had to improve the mix of winners and losers in the economy so it wouldn’t fall behind. He quoted Thomas Friedman and spoke of the quiet revolution in technology and global trade. “Countries like India and China realized this,” he said of the changes. “They understand that they no longer need to be just a source of cheap labor or cheap exports. They can compete with us on a global scale.” He cited statistics showing how China was graduating more engineers than the United States. America needed to upgrade its talent pool in order to compete in the new century.

Read more from this story HERE.

Greenspan: Economic ‘Uncertainty’ Greatest I Have Known

Photo Credit: Reuters/Landov

Photo Credit: Reuters/Landov

Uncertainty now represents the biggest problem plaguing the economy, says former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

While the Fed’s massive easing program has stabilized much of the economy, “the issue goes beyond that, because, even though we have very major expansion of the balance sheets, it has not essentially spilled over in lending by commercial banks into the usual pattern that one sees when reserves go up,” he told CNN’s “GPS” program.

So why aren’t banks lending more?

“The first and most important issue to recognize in the United States — and it’s a problem to an extent in other countries as well — is that the level of uncertainty about the very long-term future is far greater than at any time I particularly remember,” Greenspan said.

And one political argument is that “the extent of government intervention has been so horrendous that businesses cannot basically decide what to do about the future,” Greenspan said.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama Reveals How A Future GOP President Can Gut ObamaCare

606x404-2efe36e30370e6ba74d76342f78fc799I owe Mitt Romney an apology. During the 2012 Republican presidential primary season, I repeatedly criticized Romney — and personally challenged him during his editorial board meeting with the Washington Examiner — for promising that if elected, on day one of his presidency, he would grant Obamacare waivers to all 50 states.

As I reported, under the text of the law, the ability to offer waivers to states was subject to many restrictions and wouldn’t even be an option until 2017, four years after his hypothetical swearing in.

Though I still believe I was right about what the statute said, as it turns out, I was being old-fashioned by taking the letter of the law so literally.

Having watched President Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius over the past several months unilaterally alter or outright ignore major portions of the law, I now believe that a future Republican president would have greater latitude to gut Obamacare than I once thought possible.

The changes instituted by the Obama administration in response to implementation snags have ranged from perfectly legal areas of administrative discretion stemming from the vast regulatory powers granted to the HHS secretary under Obamacare, to more creative interpretations of that discretion, to Obama simply choosing to ignore parts of the law that became inconvenient.

Read more from this story HERE.

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee Being Vindicated on Shutdown

The GOP establishment is loath to admit it, but the government shutdown is turning out to be a brilliant political chess move on the part of Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. The Obamacare disaster, fully predictable by anyone who understands the effect of incentives and the fundamental incompetence of academic theorists and left wing ideologues, has made the go-for-broke attempt to stop it an obvious profile in courage.

Just take a look at this chart from the Huffington Post, via Charlie Cook:

generic ballot 12 13

Cook, a seasoned observer, sees the polling data moving against Democrats, and wonders, “Can Democrats Recover From the Obamacare Catastrophe?” But he fails to connect the dots, and dishes some typical establishmentarian snark at Cruz and Lee.

…in August, statements started coming from some of the more exotic Republicans in the House and Senate that perhaps it was a good idea to shut down the government over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Notwithstanding warnings from House and Senate Republican leaders and experienced (and wiser) members that such an effort would be a disaster for the party, the Republicans in the “kamikaze caucus” barreled ahead, over the cliff, shutting down the government.

Read more from this story HERE.

Krauthammer: Woe to U.S. Allies

Photo Credit: John Shinkle/POLITICO

Photo Credit: John Shinkle/POLITICO

Three crises, one president, many bewildered friends.

The first crisis, barely noticed here, is Ukraine’s sudden turn away from Europe and back to the Russian embrace.

After years of negotiations for a major trading agreement with the European Union, Ukraine succumbed to characteristically blunt and brutal economic threats from Russia and abruptly walked away. Ukraine is instead considering joining the Moscow-centered Customs Union with Russia’s fellow dictatorships Belarus and Kazakhstan.

This is no trivial matter. Ukraine is not just the largest European country, it’s the linchpin for Vladimir Putin’s dream of a renewed imperial Russia, hegemonic in its neighborhood and rolling back the quarter-century advancement of the “Europe whole and free” bequeathed by America’s victory in the Cold War.

The U.S. response? Almost imperceptible. As with Iran’s ruthlessly crushed Green Revolution of 2009, the hundreds of thousands of protesters who’ve turned out to reverse this betrayal of Ukrainian independence have found no voice in Washington. Can’t this administration even rhetorically support those seeking a democratic future, as we did during Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004?

Read more from this story HERE.

Steyn: The Post-Work Economy

pic_giant_120613_SM_The-Post-Work-EconomyOne consequence of the botched launch of Obamacare is that it has, judging from his plummeting numbers with “Millennials,” diminished Barack Obama’s cool. It’s not merely that the website isn’t state-of-the-art but that the art it’s flailing to be state of is that of the mid-20th-century social program. The emperor has hipster garb, but underneath he’s just another Commissar Squaresville.

So, health care being an irredeemable downer for the foreseeable future, this week the president pivoted (as they say) to “economic inequality,” which will be, he assures us, his principal focus for the rest of his term. And what’s his big idea for this new priority? Stand well back: He wants to increase the minimum wage! Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos of Amazon (a non-government website) is musing about delivering his products to customers across the country (and the planet) within hours by using drones.

Drones! If there’s one thing Obama can do, it’s drones. He’s renowned across Yemen and Waziristan as the Domino’s of drones. If he’d thought to have your health-insurance-cancellation notices dropped by drone, Obamacare might have been a viable business model. Yet, even in Obama’s sole area of expertise and dominant market share, the private sector is already outpacing him.

Who has a greater grasp of the economic contours of the day after tomorrow — Bezos or Obama? My colleague Jonah Goldberg notes that the day before the president’s speech on “inequality,” Applebee’s announced that it was introducing computer “menu tablets” to its restaurants. Automated supermarket checkout, 3D printing, driverless vehicles . . . what has the “minimum wage” to do with any of that? To get your minimum wage increased, you first have to have a minimum-wage job.

In my book (which I shall forbear to plug, but is available at Amazon, and with which Jeff Bezos will be happy to drone your aunt this holiday season), I write: Once upon a time, millions of Americans worked on farms. Then, as agriculture declined, they moved into the factories. When manufacturing was outsourced, they settled into low-paying service jobs or better-paying cubicle jobs — so-called “professional services” often deriving from the ever swelling accounting and legal administration that now attends almost any activity in America. What comes next? Or, more to the point, what if there is no “next”?

Read more from this story HERE.

Jonah Goldberg: Liberals are Culture War Aggressors

Photo Credit: Alex Wong, Getty Maybe someone can explain to me how, exactly, conservatives are the aggressors in the culture war? In the conventional narrative of American politics, conservatives are obsessed with social issues. They want to impose their values on everyone else. They want the government involved in your bedroom. Those mean right-wingers want to make “health care choices” for women.

Now consider last week’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to consider two cases stemming from Obamacare: Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius and Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Democratic politicians and their fans on social media went ballistic almost instantly. That’s hardly unusual these days. But what’s revealing is that the talking points are all wrong.

Suddenly, the government is the hero for getting deeply involved in the reproductive choices of nearly every American, whether you want the government involved or not. The bad guy is now your boss who, according to an outraged Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., would be free to keep you from everything from HIV treatment to vaccinating your children if Hobby Lobby has its way. Murray and the White House insist that every business should be compelled by law to protect its employees’ “right” to “contraception” that is “free.”

Birth control not a right

I put all three words in quotation marks because these are deeply contentious claims. For starters, the right to free birth control — or health care generally — is not one you’ll find in the Constitution. And even if you think it should be a right, that is hardly a settled issue in American life.

Read more from this story HERE.

‘Bizarre Behavior’ Could be Risk to Christie White House Run

Photo Credit: AP/Ross D. FranklinGov. Chris Christie’s “bizarre behavior’’ in refusing to say he’ll support a possible GOP challenger to Gov. Cuomo next year could derail his chances to become president, state and national GOP insiders have told The Post.

“Christie already has a problem with many Republicans refusing to forgive him because of his embrace of [President] Obama and his socially liberal policies,’’ said a nationally prominent GOP operative. “But this bizarre behavior in suggesting he won’t help a Republican defeat a Democratic governor, and a Cuomo no less, could finish off his chances of becoming his party’s nominee for president in 2016,’’ the operative continued.

Cuomo claimed last week that Christie, the new head of the Republican Governors Association — an organization whose purpose is to elect GOP governors — had quickly called him to say The Post was wrong in reporting the New Jersey governor was ready to back Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, should he become the Republican nominee for governor next year.

“I spoke to Gov. Christie this morning, who told me the exact opposite,’’ Cuomo contended in reference to last week’s “Inside Albany” column.

But Christie spokesman Colin Reed refused to confirm Cuomo’s claim, referring questions to Christie political consultant and longtime GOP operative Mike DuHaime, who likewise refused to comment.

Read more from this story HERE.