BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label vets benefits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vets benefits. Show all posts
13 October 2020
07 November 2015
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS? OUR VETS? OUR SENIORS? CEOs got a raise. Seniors and veterans deserve one too. 5NOV15
SEN ELIZABETH WARREN D MA has introduced legislation, the Seniors and Veterans Emergency (SAVE) Benefits Act in response to the Social Security Administration's decision to NOT give a cost of living increase in 2016. In this age of economic inequality, while we are still recovering from the "great" recession of 2008 the federal government should not be cutting the federal deficit by taking from those who need it most while allowing corporate CEOs to rake in millions in tax free performance benefits. If you are on Social Security or a vet, if your parents or other family members or friends are, and the Social Security Administration's decision for no COLA in 2016 you should consider signing Sen Warren's petition to congress to pass her bill. It will also help if you contact your senator and tell them you want them to cosponsor SAVE and to vote for it, and then if you contact your representative and express the same when the legislation comes to the House. DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT, we, the people, have the power to get this legislation passed. You might also want to check out how many of the senators who are currently running to be their party's 2016 presidential nominee are cosponsoring SAVE, see the list below. I noticed neither of my senators from Virginia are listed and I'll be letting them know what I think about that.....
Three weeks ago, the Social Security Administration made a quiet announcement.
Next year, for just the third time since 1975, seniors who receive Social Security won’t be getting an annual cost of living increase. Neither will millions of other Americans whose veterans’ benefits, disability benefits, and other monthly payments are pegged to Social Security.
Two-thirds of retirees depend on Social Security to pay for the basics, to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads – but seniors who usually get a small boost on January 1st won’t see an extra dime next year. That’s why today, I’m introducing the Seniors and Veterans Emergency (SAVE) Benefits Act – a one-time payment equivalent to a Social Security benefits increase of 3.9%.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has been my strong partner over the years in our fight to protect and expand Social Security -- and action is needed again now to show Congress that seniors and veterans need an emergency boost on January 1st. Please sign up to show your support for the SAVE Benefits Act.
I'll be talking about this issue on MSNBC tonight (5 NOV 15) and with my colleagues in the days and weeks ahead. I'd sure like to talk about the grassroots support for this idea from people like you.
Elizabeth Warren On Social Security, Marco Rubio | MSNBC
Why give seniors and veterans a 3.9% Social Security boost? Well, times are tough for America’s seniors – but they aren't tough for everyone. According to recent data, CEOs at the top 350 American companies received, on average, a 3.9% pay increase last year.
But here’s the kicker: taxpayers like you subsidize huge pay packages for CEOs through billions of dollars in giveaways, including a crazy loophole that allows corporations to write off obscene executive bonuses as a business expense for “performance pay.”
Our new SAVE Benefits Act would give seniors and veterans a benefits boost without adding a single penny to the deficit simply by closing that performance pay loophole. In fact, closing that tax loophole would create enough revenue to give seniors and vets this 3.9% emergency boost and still have money left over for the Social Security Trust Fund to help extend the life of Social Security.
Think about what this change would mean. A one-time 3.9% Social Security payment is worth about $581 a person next year – a little less than $50 a month. For someone barely scraping by on a $1,250 Social Security check each month, $581 would cover almost three months of groceries, or a year’s worth of out-of-pocket costs for a Medicare beneficiary’s prescription drugs. According to an analysis, that little boost could lift more than 1 million Americans out of poverty. That’s a big deal.
This is about choices. We have the money to do this – only right now that money goes to fund a loophole that benefits corporate CEOs. We could use exactly that same money to help out seniors and vets – and make the Social Security system more stable. For me, it’s pretty straightforward: Our spending should reflect our values.
So let’s just do it. Let’s close the loophole and let’s use the money to give seniors and vets the support they need on January 1st. Sign up now to show Congress that America supports the SAVE Benefits Act.
Thank you for being a part of this,
Elizabeth
P.S. I've got a strong, tough, determined
group of fighters by my side for the SAVE Benefits Act: Ed Markey,
Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Chuck Schumer, Bill Nelson, Debbie
Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Kirsten Gillibrand, Al Franken, Dick
Blumenthal, Chris Murphy, Mazie Hirono, and Tammy Baldwin. Join us now to help give seniors and veterans the boost they need on January 1st.
Want to support the Warren wing? Senator Elizabeth Warren says, "When PCCC members donate millions in small-dollar donations and make millions of phone calls for progressive candidates, leaders in Washington, they take notice."
Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org)
and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions
for federal income tax purposes.
01 March 2014
#HelpVets VETS BILL DIES IN SENATE, HOW YOUR SENATOR VOTED & With just 41 votes, Republican senators block veterans benefits bill 27FEB14
SENATE repiglicans and tea-baggers put the interest of the pro Israel lobby and US military-industrial complex profit margins ahead of American veterans. They insisted on attaching an amendment to this bill that would have imposed new sanctions on Iran and pushed us closer to war with Iran. They insisted on an amendment that would have increased the probability of more American military deaths, more wounded, more disabled military service personnel, and when they didn't get their way filibustered and killed legislation that would have provided more health care, more education and more job training for American vets. They should be ashamed, and the American people and vets should remember this vote. Check out how your Senator voted below. From Sen Bernie Sanders I VT, Daily Kos and Roll Call......
AP reports on the GOP's successful filibuster of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' veterans benefits bill:
SENATE vote on S1982.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress - 2nd Session
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/helpvets?utm_source=berniebuzz&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Chris+Cuomo&utm_campaign=National+Bernie+Buzz+03-01
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/27/1280922/-With-just-41-votes-Republican-senators-block-veterans-benefits-bill?detail=email
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00046
|
| Senate Republicans on Thursday derailed legislation to expand health care, education and job-training benefits for the nation’s 22 million veterans. “I have a hard time understanding how anyone could vote for tax breaks for billionaires, for millionaires, for large corporations and then say we don't have the resources to protect our veterans,” Bernie told the Senate before his legislation was sidetracked on a mostly party-line vote. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Bernie’s bill was backed by more than two dozen veterans’ service organizations. “I don’t know how anyone who voted ‘no’ today can look a veteran in the eye and justify that vote,” said American Legion Commander Daniel Dellinger. Bernie isn’t giving up. Just three more Republican votes are needed to pass the bill. CNN's Chris Cuomo called what happened "outrageous." | ||
|
Watch CNN's Chris Cuomo explain the vote |
Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 01:15 PM PST
With just 41 votes, Republican senators block veterans benefits bill
Senate Republicans have blocked a Democratic bill that would enrich health, education and job-training programs for the nation's 22 million veterans.And why did Republicans—who "won" the vote because "only" 56 senators voted in favor of moving forward with the bill—decide to block it?
Republicans complained that the bill was too expensive. And they were upset that Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented a vote on a GOP amendment cutting the bill and adding sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program.Ah yes, we mustn't be too generous when it comes to the people we ask to defend our country with their lives. Especially not when we're not even able to have a vote on an unrelated piece of legislation, even if that unrelated piece of legislation would make it more likely that we'd send even more veterans to their death, as their Iran sanctions bill would do. Lovely Republican Party, eh?
SENATE vote on S1982.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary| Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: S.1982 ) | |||
| Vote Number: | 46 | Vote Date: | February 27, 2014, 02:26 PM |
| Required For Majority: | 3/5 | Vote Result: | Motion Rejected |
| Measure Number: | S. 1982 (Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014 ) | ||
| Measure Title: | A bill to improve the provision of medical services and benefits to veterans, and for other purposes. | ||
| Vote Counts: | YEAs | 56 |
| NAYs | 41 | |
| Not Voting | 3 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/helpvets?utm_source=berniebuzz&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Chris+Cuomo&utm_campaign=National+Bernie+Buzz+03-01
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00046
28 March 2013
Action Alert: Keep Fighting, Senate votes against chained CPI & 5 Places Where You Should Never Give Your Social Security Number 28MAR13
THANK GOD for +Sen Bernie Sanders I VT, who, along with Sens +Tom Harkin D IA, +Mazie Hirono D HI and +Sheldon Whitehouse D RI got a non-binding resolution passed by the Senate on 22MAR13 rejecting tying Social Security benefit increases to chained CPI. They showed the moral courage and leadership the nation needs on this critical issue standing up for retirees and veterans and their survivors and have sent a clear message to +Pres Obama and the Congressional leadership that the budget will not be balanced on the backs of the people. Please click the link and tell Pres Obama to drop his Social Security chained cpi proposal! AND here is a good article from +Adam Levin about when NOT to give out your Social Security number, from +HuffPost Tech
ORIGINALLY POSTED TO JOAN MCCARTER ON MON MAR 25, 2013 AT 09:33 AM PDT.
ALSO REPUBLISHED BY THE DEMOCRATIC WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, IN SUPPORT OF LABOR AND UNIONS, SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDERS, AND DAILY KOS.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/25/1196829/-Senate-votes-against-chained-CPI#
5 Places Where You Should Never Give Your Social Security Number
Every time you go to a new doctor or dentist and they give you a clipboard brimming with documents to fill out and sign, notice how they always ask for your Social Security number? Do you dutifully give it up? Did you ever wonder if they really need it?
I once asked a doctor why he wanted it. His response: "I don't really know. I guess it's because we've always asked for it." (In actuality, most doctors ask in case your insurance doesn't pay the entire invoice and/or to fill out a death certificate if you die. Offer a next of kin who knows the number instead, and your phone number for billing issues.)
Almost every day somebody asks for your Social Security Number and, like the Grand Marshal of a parade throwing rose petals or candy to the crowd, you probably give it up without giving it a second thought -- because that's what you've always done.
So, the next time someone asks you for your Social Security number, reflect on this: In December, the Army announced that hackers stole the Social Security numbers of 36,000 visitors to Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, including intelligence officers. Cyber activists took control of the CIA's website. The private information, including some Social Security numbers, of celebrities and political leaders including FBI Director Robert Mueller and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were exposed.
The sensitive data of First Lady Michelle Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder, recently were posted on a website for the world to see.
Hackers even listened in on a phone call in which the FBI and Scotland Yard were discussing the criminal investigation against those very same hackers!
And these incidents are only the crumbs on top of the coffee cake when you consider that hackers and thieves have improperly accessed more than 600 million consumer files since 2004.
The moral to these horror stories is that if your Social Security number is stored on any computer anywhere, hackers will find a way to access it, or a compromised or disgruntled employee may well walk out the door with it. If your doctor, gym, or child's grade school claims otherwise, that their security systems can protect your private data better than the CIA, FBI and Scotland Yard, to quote Monty Python: "Run away!"
Your identity is your biggest asset, and your Social Security number is the key to your personal kingdom. With it an identity thief can wreak havoc, hijacking your old credit accounts, establishing new ones, buying cars and houses, committing crimes, even obtaining medical products and services while pretending to be you, endangering not just your credit and your reputation, but also your life.
Consumers whose Social Security numbers are exposed in a data breach are five times more likely to become fraud victims than those who aren't, according to the latest identity fraud report by Javelin Strategy & Research.
"Just say no," should be your motto here. For better or worse, you are the gatekeeper. The person most responsible for shielding your Social Security Number is you. Therefore, your mission is to limit, as best you can, the universe of those who gain access to it.
Here's a short list of companies and organizations that have absolutely no business requesting your Social Security number:
1. Anyone who calls or sends you an official-looking email, who texts you a link to any site or designates a number to call where you are asked to confirm your SSN. If they call, check the credit or debit card that is the subject of the communication, call the customer service number listed on the back, and ask for the security department. If they email or text, do the same, or go directly to the institution's website (provided you know who they are). Make sure you type the correct URL, and make sure that the page where you are asked to enter your information is secure. Only provide personal information if you're the one who controls the interaction.
2. Public schools: Your utility bill confirms your address. Your email and phone number give them channels to contact you in an emergency. Asking for your Social Security number is overkill.
3. Little League, summer camp and the like: For the same reasons as school, a Social Security number should never be required by these groups. If they ask for your child's birth certificate, show it to them, don't leave it with them unless they can prove they will protect it. And even then, can you really believe them? If you use credit to pay for the activity, the organization may need your Social Security number. If you pay for it upfront or with a direct debit to your bank account or credit card, they don't. Period.
4. Supermarkets: A frequent shopper card is neither a loan, nor a bank account. It's merely a tool grocery stores use to track your purchases, primarily for marketing purposes. Regardless, many supermarket chains request customers' Social Security numbers on their application forms. Refuse.
5. Anybody who approaches you on the street, whether it's a cellphone company salesman offering a free T-shirt or someone running a voter registration campaign: Never, ever give your SSN. If you want an ill-fitting T-shirt festooned with corporate logos, buy one. If you want to register to vote, go to your county board of elections in person.
This is the short list. There are plenty of other organizations that should never get your Social Security number, and if you know one that I've left out, please leave it in the comments.
Don't just hand it over your Social Security number to anyone. Once you realize how often you are asked for it, you may be surprised. It happens all the time. So, the next time someone does, as they inevitably will, here's how to handle it:
1. Take a minute and think. Maybe they ask for SSNs blindly, because everyone else does, or because that's how they've always done it. Maybe they actually need it. See if their reason sounds legitimate. (Update: For example, Credit.com's Credit Report Card does ask for your SSN in order to generate your credit score and credit report summary -- an industry standard -- but the information is fully encrypted with a bank level authentication process.)
2. Negotiate. There are many different ways to identify you without a Social Security number, including your driver's license or account number. Fight to use those instead.
3. If you must share your Social Security number, do so, but make sure the people taking it down have strong security measures in place to protect it. That said, you only have their assurance and frankly, in light of the mistakes people make and the sophistication level of hackers, who really knows if they can protect it?
If all this sounds like a giant pain in the neck, you're right. It is. In the midst of our busy lives, we shouldn't be the only ones concerned with protecting our most valuable identity asset, but it is what it is. Until somebody creates a Silver Bullet for identity theft, we are forced to take matters into our own hands.
Don't be passive; ask the companies and nonprofit groups with which you do business how they plan to protect you. Do they password protect and encrypt all the personal information they collect? Do they have strict controls on who has access to computers containing your Social Security number, and do they keep this sensitive data off laptops, tablets and hard drives that are easy to steal or lose?
Like the doctor I met, many companies collect Social Security numbers they don't need because they're operating on autopilot. They've always done it, and their colleagues at other companies do it, so the practice continues and spreads on the strength of simple, dumb inertia. I believe that we are smarter than that. By demanding that companies do a better job protecting our personal information, and refusing to hand out our Social Security numbers like candy at a parade, we can force them to get smarter, too. And if they don't think we're serious about this and the government doesn't finally force them off their Social Security number addiction, it is highly likely that the ultimate regulator of the American economic system, class action attorneys, will be knocking on their door
19 January 2013
Paying for the all-voluntary military 14JAN13
THERE is no way I can be described as pro military. I would rather have my tax dollars be spent on social safety net programs, increasing funding for education, job training, infrastructure, protecting the environment, health care, rather than new weapons systems that improve the way we can kill larger numbers of our enemies at the expense of quality of life spending. BUT, I do not support cuts in funding for supplies and services for our troops and vets and their families while the profit margins of military contractors are protected, while the bloated officer corps in every branch of the military waste hundreds of millions of dollars on their own pampered care and while the Pentagon waste hundreds of millions of dollars on marching bands, PR military flyovers, and golf courses, resorts and travel the vast majority of those in the military do not have access to. I find it very disturbing the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission mandated by the 2013 Defense Authorization Bill prohibits "any member from being “employed by a veterans service organization or military-related advocacy group or association,” a move meant to prevent conflict of interest" but not military contractors, members of the military-industrial complex whose interest are profit margins, not our national security. Guess who's interest the commission will best represent? Not the grunt or vet that's for certain. As I have said before, the only hope we have for the US Military to be physically and fiscally revamped lies with Sec of Defense designate Chuck Hagel, and that is why there is such a firestorm surrounding his nomination. For more on this see my earlier post Excess-profits tax on defense contractors during wartime is long overdue 31DEZ12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/excess-profits-tax-on-defense.html
and 7 Shocking Ways the Military Wastes Our Money 11DEZ12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/7-shocking-ways-military-wastes-our.html
and Top Two Percent To GOP: Tax Us & Defense Execs Say Deeper DoD Budget Cuts, Higher Taxes OK 5&3DEZ12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/top-two-percent-to-gop-tax-us-defense.html
and 7 Shocking Ways the Military Wastes Our Money 11DEZ12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/7-shocking-ways-military-wastes-our.html
and Top Two Percent To GOP: Tax Us & Defense Execs Say Deeper DoD Budget Cuts, Higher Taxes OK 5&3DEZ12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/top-two-percent-to-gop-tax-us-defense.html
This from the Washington Post....
“The all-in cost of the all-volunteer force is one of the time-ticking bombs that could explode our defense capabilities if not dealt with responsibly,” said Arnold L. Punaro, chairman of the board, a former top staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee and retired Marine Corps major general.
Punaro said one reason that it’s difficult to reform the system is because “the Pentagon does not know what the all-volunteer force really costs.” His board study says the Defense Department has not included in its calculations all ancillary, life-cycle costs such as family housing, education, day care, commissaries and health care.
They are the equivalent of what industry would consider deferred compensation, Punaro said.
Under today’s system, military personnel who retire after 20 years of service receive at least 50 percent of their salaries for the rest of their lives, indexed for inflation. Another 2 percent is added for every service year over 20. They also get lifetime health insurance under TRICARE, the military’s HMO-style plan whose current annual fee for families is $520.
“The military (active duty) retirement system is arguably the best retirement deal around. Unlike most retirement plans, the Armed Forces offer a pension (technically a “reduced compensation for reduced services) with benefits that start the day you retire, no matter how old you are,” according to Military.com.
Punaro adds these facts:
“First of all, 80 percent of those who join the military and serve honorably never get one nickel in retirement benefits or health care after they leave active duty. For the 17 percent that make it to a non-disability retirement, 75 percent of them retire at career [year] 23 or less (why wouldn’t they).”
One result, he adds, is “we now have 2.4 million retirees and only 1.4 million active duty.” Adding to the cost, he says, “We have 9 million beneficiaries of the $52 billion-a-year health-care bill of which 5.5 million are retirees and their dependents.”
The 1970 Nixon-appointed commission that recommended moving from the draft to an all-volunteer force said the program “would be unsustainable over time if it did not end the 20-year cliff vesting retirement, the up and out promotion system and change the pay and compensation from time in grade to skills and performance.” The all-volunteer program started in 1973, and 40 years later none of those changes has occurred.
Change will depend on the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, which Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta called for last year and Congress established in the fiscal 2013 Defense Authorization Bill. President Obama signed the bill on Dec. 31.
Its task is “to make recommendations to modernize such systems in order to ensure the long-term viability of the All-Volunteer Force.”
There will be nine members, one appointed by Obama and two each by the Senate majority and minority leaders and House speaker and minority leader. A four-month deadline was set to appoint the members. The law prohibits any member from being “employed by a veterans service organization or military-related advocacy group or association,” a move meant to prevent conflict of interest.
Panel recommendations are supposed to come within two years. Five months after the commission is established, the president is to give it a set of principles for modernization. Four months later, the defense secretary is supposed to provide specific recommendations. Six months after that, the commission is to report its findings and recommendations to the president and to Congress.
To protect current members of the armed forces and retirees, the commission cannot change the monthly amount of retirement pay to less than what they would have received under current programs, nor their eligibility date.
Here’s a tough issue for the commission: relating retirement compensation to combat or non-combat service.
On Friday I discussed budget problems before a group of Marine Corps majors and lieutenant colonels at the Command and Staff College at Quantico. Many of them had seen — or would see — service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
I noted that, historically, probably fewer than 20 percent of them would spend 20 years in the service and qualify for retirement pay and benefits. I then asked how they felt about those who don’t see combat but serve 20 or more years in office jobs. There was a nervous rustle when I mentioned the Marine Corps Band, “The President’s Own,” most members of which never went to boot camp and who can serve their entire military career in Washington.
According to the band’s Web site, 40 of its musicians have 19 or more years of service, almost all with the band. That’s roughly 30 percent of the band’s musicians, or near double the potential retirement rate for combat and other units. The director, Col. Michael J. Colburn, and his executive and operations officers have each been with the band for more than 24 years.
Shouldn’t a retirement plan have a pay differential between combat and non-combat service since today most enlisted personnel who fight almost never stay in for 20 years? Should there be a totally different retirement system?
It remains to be seen whether Congress will have the nerve to significantly revise a system that the country can no longer afford
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/paying-for-the-all-voluntary-military/2013/01/14/3c4bab00-5e71-11e2-a389-ee565c81c565_print.html
By Walter Pincus
The United States can’t sustain the pay, allowances, retirement and health benefits that the all-volunteer military force and their families enjoy, according to a study by the Defense Department’s Reserve Forces Policy Board.“The all-in cost of the all-volunteer force is one of the time-ticking bombs that could explode our defense capabilities if not dealt with responsibly,” said Arnold L. Punaro, chairman of the board, a former top staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee and retired Marine Corps major general.
Punaro said one reason that it’s difficult to reform the system is because “the Pentagon does not know what the all-volunteer force really costs.” His board study says the Defense Department has not included in its calculations all ancillary, life-cycle costs such as family housing, education, day care, commissaries and health care.
They are the equivalent of what industry would consider deferred compensation, Punaro said.
Under today’s system, military personnel who retire after 20 years of service receive at least 50 percent of their salaries for the rest of their lives, indexed for inflation. Another 2 percent is added for every service year over 20. They also get lifetime health insurance under TRICARE, the military’s HMO-style plan whose current annual fee for families is $520.
“The military (active duty) retirement system is arguably the best retirement deal around. Unlike most retirement plans, the Armed Forces offer a pension (technically a “reduced compensation for reduced services) with benefits that start the day you retire, no matter how old you are,” according to Military.com.
Punaro adds these facts:
“First of all, 80 percent of those who join the military and serve honorably never get one nickel in retirement benefits or health care after they leave active duty. For the 17 percent that make it to a non-disability retirement, 75 percent of them retire at career [year] 23 or less (why wouldn’t they).”
One result, he adds, is “we now have 2.4 million retirees and only 1.4 million active duty.” Adding to the cost, he says, “We have 9 million beneficiaries of the $52 billion-a-year health-care bill of which 5.5 million are retirees and their dependents.”
The 1970 Nixon-appointed commission that recommended moving from the draft to an all-volunteer force said the program “would be unsustainable over time if it did not end the 20-year cliff vesting retirement, the up and out promotion system and change the pay and compensation from time in grade to skills and performance.” The all-volunteer program started in 1973, and 40 years later none of those changes has occurred.
Change will depend on the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, which Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta called for last year and Congress established in the fiscal 2013 Defense Authorization Bill. President Obama signed the bill on Dec. 31.
Its task is “to make recommendations to modernize such systems in order to ensure the long-term viability of the All-Volunteer Force.”
There will be nine members, one appointed by Obama and two each by the Senate majority and minority leaders and House speaker and minority leader. A four-month deadline was set to appoint the members. The law prohibits any member from being “employed by a veterans service organization or military-related advocacy group or association,” a move meant to prevent conflict of interest.
Panel recommendations are supposed to come within two years. Five months after the commission is established, the president is to give it a set of principles for modernization. Four months later, the defense secretary is supposed to provide specific recommendations. Six months after that, the commission is to report its findings and recommendations to the president and to Congress.
To protect current members of the armed forces and retirees, the commission cannot change the monthly amount of retirement pay to less than what they would have received under current programs, nor their eligibility date.
Here’s a tough issue for the commission: relating retirement compensation to combat or non-combat service.
On Friday I discussed budget problems before a group of Marine Corps majors and lieutenant colonels at the Command and Staff College at Quantico. Many of them had seen — or would see — service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
I noted that, historically, probably fewer than 20 percent of them would spend 20 years in the service and qualify for retirement pay and benefits. I then asked how they felt about those who don’t see combat but serve 20 or more years in office jobs. There was a nervous rustle when I mentioned the Marine Corps Band, “The President’s Own,” most members of which never went to boot camp and who can serve their entire military career in Washington.
According to the band’s Web site, 40 of its musicians have 19 or more years of service, almost all with the band. That’s roughly 30 percent of the band’s musicians, or near double the potential retirement rate for combat and other units. The director, Col. Michael J. Colburn, and his executive and operations officers have each been with the band for more than 24 years.
Shouldn’t a retirement plan have a pay differential between combat and non-combat service since today most enlisted personnel who fight almost never stay in for 20 years? Should there be a totally different retirement system?
It remains to be seen whether Congress will have the nerve to significantly revise a system that the country can no longer afford
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/paying-for-the-all-voluntary-military/2013/01/14/3c4bab00-5e71-11e2-a389-ee565c81c565_print.html
11 January 2013
Republican Senator Calls For Repeat Of 1995 Government Shutdown: ‘If We Hold Strong We Can Do That Again’ & Obama Reiterates He Won’t Compromise Over Debt Ceiling, Calls For Closing Tax Loopholes For The Rich 5&7JAN13
HOPE springs eternal that Pres Obama realizes he is the President and doesn't have to negotiate with the repiglicans and tea-baggers in congress over the federal debt. After all, as pointed out in this article, negotiations were not required the 19 times the debt ceiling was raised when george w bush was president. And it is refreshing and heartening to see Pres Obama standing firm in his insistence on raising revenues by closing tax loopholes that benefit only the rich and corporations. Progressives will have to keep vigilant to make sure the President stands his ground. This from Think Progress, followed by a piece on sen ted cruz's call for the repiglican / tea-bagger obstructionist in congress to stand firm against Pres Obama on raising the fed debt ceiling, shutting down the American govt if necessary (but close tax loopholes legislated only for the rich and corporations? Oh no, he opposes that, big surprise).
In
a his weekly address from Hawaii, President Obama reiterated that he
will not negotiate with Republicans over raising the nation’s debt
ceiling and said that any future efforts to reduce the deficit must
include a combination of higher revenues and spending cuts.
Obama noted that additional revenue could come from closing tax loopholes and deductions Republicans themselves sought to reform throughout the 2012 presidential election and the fiscal cliff talks but were not altered in the compromise Congress passed to avert the fiscal cliff. Congress enacted $1.7 trillion in budget cuts last year and raised $620 billion in revenue in the fiscal cliff fix, a number that is far below House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)’s offer of $800 billion during the cliff negotiations and lower than what would have been raised under Simpson-Bowles or Rivlin-Domenici.
From Obama’s remarks:
During George W. Bush’s presidency, however, Republicans voted to increase the debt ceiling 19 times without ever demanding spending reductions, increasing the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion. In 2011, Boehner even warned of the consequences of holding the nation’s credit rating hostage. “That would be a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy,” Boehner said on “Fox News Sunday” of the risk of default. “I don’t think it’s a question that’s even on the table.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/05/1402591/obama-reiterates-he-wont-compromise-over-debt-ceiling-calls-for-closing-tax-loopholes-for-the-rich/
Tea
Party-aligned Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), within days of being sworn in, is
already calling for a government shutdown unless Congress agrees to
massive budget cuts.
During an appearance on Mark Levin’s radio show Friday, Cruz waxed poetic about the last time Republicans successfully shut down the government in 1995, arguing that a shutdown leads to better economic policies. “Because Republicans stood strong in 1995, we saw year after year of balanced budgets,” Cruz said. He went on to call for a repeat as Republicans hold the nation’s fiscal solvency hostage in the debt ceiling fight next month. “If we hold strong we can do that again,” the Texas Senator declared:
Were Cruz and his Republican allies to succeed in shutting down the government, the effects would be felt widely. Over 800,000 federal workers
would likely be furloughed, Social Security processing could be
delayed, newly-eligible Medicare patients wouldn’t be able to obtain
benefits, police and public safety officials could be cut, and veterans’
services would be impacted.
In addition, a debt ceiling negotiation itself is costly; last time Republicans held it hostage in 2011, the debacle cost taxpayers $19 billion.
The larger problem, however, is that by not raising the debt ceiling, Congress risks defaulting on the United States’ credit. If Cruz and his allies block a debt ceiling increase, the Treasury won’t be able to pay all its bills. As Matthew Yglesias notes, “The result won’t be a ‘shutdown’ of government functions; it’ll be a deadbeat federal government. Some people won’t get money they’re legally entitled to.” That’s why House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) warned in 2011 that not raising the debt ceiling would cause “financial disaster” for the entire “worldwide economy.”
In his first week in Congress, Cruz is already earning a reputation as an unwavering firebrand. As he explained on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, “I don’t think what Washington needs is more compromise.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/07/1406011/cruz-calls-for-shutdown-default/
In
a his weekly address from Hawaii, President Obama reiterated that he
will not negotiate with Republicans over raising the nation’s debt
ceiling and said that any future efforts to reduce the deficit must
include a combination of higher revenues and spending cuts. Obama noted that additional revenue could come from closing tax loopholes and deductions Republicans themselves sought to reform throughout the 2012 presidential election and the fiscal cliff talks but were not altered in the compromise Congress passed to avert the fiscal cliff. Congress enacted $1.7 trillion in budget cuts last year and raised $620 billion in revenue in the fiscal cliff fix, a number that is far below House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)’s offer of $800 billion during the cliff negotiations and lower than what would have been raised under Simpson-Bowles or Rivlin-Domenici.
From Obama’s remarks:
I believe we can find more places to cut spending without shortchanging things like education, job training, research and technology all which are critical to our prosperity in a 21st century economy. But spending cuts must be balanced with more reforms to our tax code. The wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations shouldn’t be able to take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans.Since Obama signed the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012,” the GOP has insisted that the measure “settles the level of revenue Washington should bring in” and have turned their attention to using the leverage of the debt ceiling to secure spending cuts and entitlement reforms.
And as I said earlier this week, one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up. If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.
During George W. Bush’s presidency, however, Republicans voted to increase the debt ceiling 19 times without ever demanding spending reductions, increasing the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion. In 2011, Boehner even warned of the consequences of holding the nation’s credit rating hostage. “That would be a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy,” Boehner said on “Fox News Sunday” of the risk of default. “I don’t think it’s a question that’s even on the table.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/05/1402591/obama-reiterates-he-wont-compromise-over-debt-ceiling-calls-for-closing-tax-loopholes-for-the-rich/
Republican Senator Calls For Repeat Of 1995 Government Shutdown: ‘If We Hold Strong We Can Do That Again’
Tea
Party-aligned Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), within days of being sworn in, is
already calling for a government shutdown unless Congress agrees to
massive budget cuts.During an appearance on Mark Levin’s radio show Friday, Cruz waxed poetic about the last time Republicans successfully shut down the government in 1995, arguing that a shutdown leads to better economic policies. “Because Republicans stood strong in 1995, we saw year after year of balanced budgets,” Cruz said. He went on to call for a repeat as Republicans hold the nation’s fiscal solvency hostage in the debt ceiling fight next month. “If we hold strong we can do that again,” the Texas Senator declared:
CRUZ: What would happen if the debt ceiling isn’t raised is it would be a partial government shutdown. We’ve seen this before, we saw this in 1995, when Republicans in the House shut down the government. What happened was it was a partial shutdown, there was some political cost to be paid but at the end of the day, because Republicans stood strong in 1995, we saw year after year of balanced budgets and some of the most fiscally-responsible policies Congress has produced in the modern-era. If we hold strong we can do that again. It just comes down to Republicans. Are we willing to stand strong and face the wrath of the mainstream media criticizing us and the president saying nasty things about us?Listen to it:
In addition, a debt ceiling negotiation itself is costly; last time Republicans held it hostage in 2011, the debacle cost taxpayers $19 billion.
The larger problem, however, is that by not raising the debt ceiling, Congress risks defaulting on the United States’ credit. If Cruz and his allies block a debt ceiling increase, the Treasury won’t be able to pay all its bills. As Matthew Yglesias notes, “The result won’t be a ‘shutdown’ of government functions; it’ll be a deadbeat federal government. Some people won’t get money they’re legally entitled to.” That’s why House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) warned in 2011 that not raising the debt ceiling would cause “financial disaster” for the entire “worldwide economy.”
In his first week in Congress, Cruz is already earning a reputation as an unwavering firebrand. As he explained on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, “I don’t think what Washington needs is more compromise.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/07/1406011/cruz-calls-for-shutdown-default/
13 December 2012
When You've Lost the VFW on Budget Cuts, You've Lost America 12DEZ12
MY parents are retired and I know how the current COLA formula for Social Security effects them. The adjustment is never enough to cover the real cost of living. Now the government is considering a ploy called the "chained CPI" to cut Social Security and other benefits for the retired, vets and the poor while raising taxes on the middle class. We can not allow this to become a concession in the ongoing negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff. We all need to e mail President Obama http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
our Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
and our Representative http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
and tell them the "chained CPI" plan must be rejected and in no way be a part of the fiscal cliff budget negotiations. Don't know what to say? Use talking points from the vets letter to Congress. Or you can check out the letter I emailed at the bottom of this post. REMEMBER, Congress is counting on NOT hearing from YOU! This from HuffPost....
The "chained CPI" is an attempt to camouflage deep cuts to Social Security and other benefits, along with tax hikes on middle class wages (but not for high incomes), in a forest of numbers and terminology.
Know who's expert at camouflage? Veterans. And a whole lot of their organizations hate the "chained CPI."
Sneaky ... But Simple
The headline for Derek Thompson's Atlantic piece calls the "chained CPI" "the sneaky, complicated idea that could end the fiscal cliff showdown." There's ongoing chatter that both parties might use it to solve their budget impasse, in large part because they think it's too complex and wonkish for voters to grasp.
But while it is sneaky, it's not that complicated. In fact, the "chained CPI" concept can be explained in one sentence: It calculates cost-of-living increases much more slowly than before, by subtracting the cost of the things you can't afford to buy anymore.
See? I did it in 22 words and 113 characters -- short enough to tweet. I'll bet you understood it even if you hadn't heard of it before. And not only understood it, but sensed its implications: As a financially-strapped public downgrades from fresh food to canned food ... to cat food ... their benefits will keep plunging along with their way of life.
And yet hope springs eternal among policymakers. Last year the president even said that "most folks would hardly notice" if this cut to the government's cost-of-living adjustment was enacted. Guess what: The nation's veterans noticed.
Standing Up
A wide range of organizations representing the nation's veterans signed a joint letter to leaders in Congress which said "we are writing to express our opposition to changing the formula used to calculate the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) because of the harmful effects it will have on veterans and Social Security benefits."
The organizations signing on to the letter (18 in all) spanned generations, with the Vietnam Veterans of America and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It includes former enlisted personnel as well as the Military Officers Association of America. Gold Star Wives, an organization of widows and widowers whose spouses died while on active duty, was represented. And so was the VFW, or Veterans of Foreign Wars, an organization that had traditionally been staunchly conservative.
Here's a thought for politicians who might be considering the "chained CPI": When you've lost the VFW, you've lost America.
Getting It Right
Their letter's a cogent and very well-written analysis of this proposed benefit cut, which it rightly describes as a "misguided policy." Here's a sample:
That's absolutely correct. The chained-CPI would also raises taxes for most Americans, and in a very backhanded way: by forcing people into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Know what wouldn't get a tax hike under the chained CPI? Income above $250,000. The veterans' groups also quote Congressional Budget Office estimates of the chained CPI's deficit impact: $208 billion over 10 years through cuts to Social Security benefits, and through higher taxes -- on everybody but the wealthy. (They'd pay a little more, but the tax hikes would strike hardest at those in the $30-$40,000 income range, and would generally affect those earning $100,000 per year of less.)
The veterans note that roughly half this amount, $112 billion, "would come from Social Security cuts, which veterans rely on very heavily for both retirement and disability benefits."
"Another 11 percent of the savings," the letter notes, "would come from VA benefits, civilian pensions, and military retirement pay."
Eldernet
$208 billion also happens to be very close to my estimate of the amount our government will pay pharmaceutical companies for their bloated profit margins over the next 10 years. We could probably save $150 billion of that through negotiation and competition among drug providers -- but Congress has forced us to pay retail instead.
Think the elderly "won't notice"? Older Americans' viral email chains are dazzling to behold. Once you get past all the crazy fonts in different sizes and colors -- and the GIF cartoon animations of cute animals and oldsters playing golf -- these emails keep them well informed about Social Security and Medicare.
And they don't need emails to tell them that their current cost-of-living adjustments can't keep up with their expenses.
(That's why economists have proposed the "CPI-E," a higher adjustment for the elderly and disabled who rely on items like medical care and transportation, which go up in cost more quickly than most other items.)
Attention Must Be Paid
Let's get this straight: The "chained CPI" takes money out of the pockets of veterans, the disabled, the elderly and everybody with a job -- except the wealthiest of the wealthy. And we could get the money from Big Pharma and other health profiteers instead.
It's opposed by the young and the old, the left and the right. So who's the constituency for this thing, anyway?
Silly question.
The polls are clear: Our elected officials were called to Washington for a different mission. Any politician who thinks they can infuriate pretty much the entire electorate because they'll have billionaire cash on their side just isn't paying attention.
The good news is that our nation's veterans have a lot of experience bringing recalcitrant recruits to attention.
THE LETTER I EMAILED TO PRES OBAMA, SENS WARNER & WEBB, AND REP WOLF...
The "chained CPI" proposal is wrong for the country and must not be a concession in the negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff. You can not give in on this matter. It is a dirty, sneaky ploy that will hurt the middle class, retirees, vets and the poor. The average retirement benefit of a veteran receiving Social Security was about $15,500 in 2010 ... A veteran with average earnings retiring at age 65 would get nearly a $600 benefit cut at age 75, and a $1,000 cut at age 85. By age 95, when Social Security benefits are probably needed the most, that veteran would face a cut of $1,400 -- a reduction of 9.2 percent. The $208 billion realized if the "chained CPI" is enacted can be offset by $150 billion if Congress would require drug cost negotiation and competition instead of looking for ways to protect big Pharmas profit margins. DO NOT ENACT "CHAINED CPI" ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/when-youve-lost-the-vfw-o_b_2289211.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
our Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
and our Representative http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
and tell them the "chained CPI" plan must be rejected and in no way be a part of the fiscal cliff budget negotiations. Don't know what to say? Use talking points from the vets letter to Congress. Or you can check out the letter I emailed at the bottom of this post. REMEMBER, Congress is counting on NOT hearing from YOU! This from HuffPost....
The measure of a society’s progress is not whether it can give more
to those who have more, but whether it can provide enough to those who
have less.
- David Lim
- David Lim
The "chained CPI" is an attempt to camouflage deep cuts to Social Security and other benefits, along with tax hikes on middle class wages (but not for high incomes), in a forest of numbers and terminology.
Know who's expert at camouflage? Veterans. And a whole lot of their organizations hate the "chained CPI."
Sneaky ... But Simple
The headline for Derek Thompson's Atlantic piece calls the "chained CPI" "the sneaky, complicated idea that could end the fiscal cliff showdown." There's ongoing chatter that both parties might use it to solve their budget impasse, in large part because they think it's too complex and wonkish for voters to grasp.
But while it is sneaky, it's not that complicated. In fact, the "chained CPI" concept can be explained in one sentence: It calculates cost-of-living increases much more slowly than before, by subtracting the cost of the things you can't afford to buy anymore.
See? I did it in 22 words and 113 characters -- short enough to tweet. I'll bet you understood it even if you hadn't heard of it before. And not only understood it, but sensed its implications: As a financially-strapped public downgrades from fresh food to canned food ... to cat food ... their benefits will keep plunging along with their way of life.
And yet hope springs eternal among policymakers. Last year the president even said that "most folks would hardly notice" if this cut to the government's cost-of-living adjustment was enacted. Guess what: The nation's veterans noticed.
Standing Up
A wide range of organizations representing the nation's veterans signed a joint letter to leaders in Congress which said "we are writing to express our opposition to changing the formula used to calculate the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) because of the harmful effects it will have on veterans and Social Security benefits."
The organizations signing on to the letter (18 in all) spanned generations, with the Vietnam Veterans of America and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It includes former enlisted personnel as well as the Military Officers Association of America. Gold Star Wives, an organization of widows and widowers whose spouses died while on active duty, was represented. And so was the VFW, or Veterans of Foreign Wars, an organization that had traditionally been staunchly conservative.
Here's a thought for politicians who might be considering the "chained CPI": When you've lost the VFW, you've lost America.
Getting It Right
Their letter's a cogent and very well-written analysis of this proposed benefit cut, which it rightly describes as a "misguided policy." Here's a sample:
The average retirement benefit of a veteran receiving Social Security was about $15,500 in 2010 ... A veteran with average earnings retiring at age 65 would get nearly a $600 benefit cut at age 75, and a $1,000 cut at age 85. By age 95, when Social Security benefits are probably needed the most, that veteran would face a cut of $1,400 -- a reduction of 9.2 percent.
That's absolutely correct. The chained-CPI would also raises taxes for most Americans, and in a very backhanded way: by forcing people into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Know what wouldn't get a tax hike under the chained CPI? Income above $250,000. The veterans' groups also quote Congressional Budget Office estimates of the chained CPI's deficit impact: $208 billion over 10 years through cuts to Social Security benefits, and through higher taxes -- on everybody but the wealthy. (They'd pay a little more, but the tax hikes would strike hardest at those in the $30-$40,000 income range, and would generally affect those earning $100,000 per year of less.)
The veterans note that roughly half this amount, $112 billion, "would come from Social Security cuts, which veterans rely on very heavily for both retirement and disability benefits."
"Another 11 percent of the savings," the letter notes, "would come from VA benefits, civilian pensions, and military retirement pay."
Eldernet
$208 billion also happens to be very close to my estimate of the amount our government will pay pharmaceutical companies for their bloated profit margins over the next 10 years. We could probably save $150 billion of that through negotiation and competition among drug providers -- but Congress has forced us to pay retail instead.
Think the elderly "won't notice"? Older Americans' viral email chains are dazzling to behold. Once you get past all the crazy fonts in different sizes and colors -- and the GIF cartoon animations of cute animals and oldsters playing golf -- these emails keep them well informed about Social Security and Medicare.
And they don't need emails to tell them that their current cost-of-living adjustments can't keep up with their expenses.
(That's why economists have proposed the "CPI-E," a higher adjustment for the elderly and disabled who rely on items like medical care and transportation, which go up in cost more quickly than most other items.)
Attention Must Be Paid
Let's get this straight: The "chained CPI" takes money out of the pockets of veterans, the disabled, the elderly and everybody with a job -- except the wealthiest of the wealthy. And we could get the money from Big Pharma and other health profiteers instead.
It's opposed by the young and the old, the left and the right. So who's the constituency for this thing, anyway?
Silly question.
The polls are clear: Our elected officials were called to Washington for a different mission. Any politician who thinks they can infuriate pretty much the entire electorate because they'll have billionaire cash on their side just isn't paying attention.
The good news is that our nation's veterans have a lot of experience bringing recalcitrant recruits to attention.
THE LETTER I EMAILED TO PRES OBAMA, SENS WARNER & WEBB, AND REP WOLF...
The "chained CPI" proposal is wrong for the country and must not be a concession in the negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff. You can not give in on this matter. It is a dirty, sneaky ploy that will hurt the middle class, retirees, vets and the poor. The average retirement benefit of a veteran receiving Social Security was about $15,500 in 2010 ... A veteran with average earnings retiring at age 65 would get nearly a $600 benefit cut at age 75, and a $1,000 cut at age 85. By age 95, when Social Security benefits are probably needed the most, that veteran would face a cut of $1,400 -- a reduction of 9.2 percent. The $208 billion realized if the "chained CPI" is enacted can be offset by $150 billion if Congress would require drug cost negotiation and competition instead of looking for ways to protect big Pharmas profit margins. DO NOT ENACT "CHAINED CPI" ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/when-youve-lost-the-vfw-o_b_2289211.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
10 October 2012
Congress Set to Spend $3 Billion on Tanks, But Army Says It Doesn’t Want Them & 10&9OKT12
THE war budget is burning down our economy, and not all of it can be blamed on the Pentagon. Politicians, dependent on and controlled by money from the military-industrial complex, insist on taking food, health care, education, and decent housing from those struggling in poverty to buy weapons the military doesn't want or need. They are taking money from education for all Americans, from unemployment, from infrastructure projects, from governments funding to keep police and fire departments fully staffed. They are taking money from other Pentagon budgets providing for necessary, vital equipment for our troops, for medical care for our wounded troops, for support of our military families. They are taking money away from our Vets. They are taking money from the American public that could go to paying down the debt. They are taking from all of us for the profit margins of the military-industrial complex. From The Daily Agenda & CNN....
Posted by
Recently, CNN received special access to more than 2,000 M-1 Abrams
tanks at an undisclosed location just north of Nevada. But the Army
doesn’t want nor need them. CNN reports:
CNN was allowed rare access to what amounts to a parking lot for more than 2,000 M-1 Abrams tanks. Here, about an hour's drive north of Reno, Nevada, the tanks have been collecting dust in the hot California desert because of a tiff between the Army and Congress.
The U.S. has more than enough combat tanks in the field to meet the nation's defense needs - so there's no sense in making repairs to these now, the Army's chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress earlier this year.
If the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new tanks for three years until new technologies are developed, the Army says it can save taxpayers as much as $3 billion.
That may seem like a lot of money, but it's a tiny sacrifice for a Defense Department that will cut $500 billion from its budget over the next decade and may be forced to cut a further $500 billion if a deficit cutting deal is not reached by Congress.
Why is this a big deal? For one, the U.S. hasn't stopped producing tanks since before World War II, according to lawmakers.
Plus, from its point of view the Army would prefer to decide what it needs and doesn't need to keep America strong while making tough economic cuts elsewhere.
"When a relatively conservative institution like the U.S. military, which doesn't like to take risks because risks get people killed, says it has enough tanks, I think generally civilians should be inclined to believe them," said Travis Sharp a fellow at the defense think tank, New American Security.
But guess which group of civilians isn't inclined to agree with the generals on this point?
Congress.
To be exact, 173 House members - Democrats and Republicans - sent a letter April 20 to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, urging him to continue supporting their decision to produce more tanks.
That's right. Lawmakers who frequently and loudly proclaim that presidents should listen to generals when it comes to battlefield decisions are refusing to take its own advice.
If the U.S. pauses tank production and refurbishment it will hurt the nation's industrial economy, lawmakers say.
"The combat vehicle industrial base is a unique asset that consists of hundreds of public and private facilities across the United States," the letter said. The outlook for selling Abrams tanks to other nations appears "stronger than prior years," the letter said. But those sales would be "inadequate to sustain the industrial base and in some cases uncertain. In light of this, modest and continued Abrams production for the Army is necessary to protect the industrial base."
Lima, Ohio, is a long way from this dusty tank parking lot. The tiny town in the northwestern part of the Buckeye State is where defense manufacturing heavyweight General Dynamics makes these 60-plus-ton behemoths.
The tanks create 16,000 jobs and involve 882 suppliers, says Kendell Pease, the company's vice-president of government relations and communications. That job figure includes ancillary positions like gas station workers who fill up employees' cars coming and going to the plant.
Many of the suppliers for tank manufacturing are scattered around the country so the issue of stopping production or refurbishment becomes a parochial one: congressional representatives don't want to kill any jobs in their districts, especially as the economy struggles during an election year.
"General Dynamics is not the industrial base," Pease said. "It is small vendors."
But General Dynamics certainly has a stake in the battle of the tanks and is making sure its investment is protected, according to research done by The Center for Public Integrity, a journalism watchdog group.
What its reporters found was General Dynamics campaign contributions given to lawmakers at key times, such as around congressional hearings, on whether or not to build more tanks.
"We aren't saying there's vote buying" said Aaron Metha, one of the report's authors. "We are saying it's true in pretty much all aspects of politics - but especially the defense industry. It's almost impossible to separate out the money that is going into elections and the special interests. And what we found was the direct spike in the giving around certain important dates that were tied to votes."
Pease said General Dynamics is bipartisan in its giving and there is nothing suspicious in the timing of its donations to members of the House and Senate. The giving is tied to when fundraisers are held in Washington - which is also when Congress is in session, he said.
Lawmakers that CNN interviewed denied that donations influenced their decisions to keep the tanks rolling.
Rep. Buck McKeon, a Republican from California and chairman of the House armed services committee, said he didn't know General Dynamics had given him $56,000 in campaign contributions since 2009 until CNN asked him about it.
"You know, the Army has a job to do and we have a job to do," McKeon said. "And they have tough choices because they've been having their budget cut."
McKeon said he's thinking about the long range view. "... If someone could guarantee us that we'll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don't see that guarantee."
Similarly, his Democratic counterpart on the committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, who has received $64,000 from General Dynamics since 2001, said he is worried about the workforce if the Lima plant is closed for three years.
"Listen, we don't want to play Russian Roulette with the national security of this country," Reyes said.
Odierno explained to the committee that it would be cheaper to shut down the tank plant and then restart it in 2017. But his plea was ignored.
"Lima would cost us $2.8 billion just to keep that open and our tank fleet is in good shape and we don't need to because of the great support that we have gotten over the last two years," he told the committee.
But General Dynamics said it will cost a lot less to keep the plant open. Pease said the Army hasn't factored in the huge costs of closing the plant and the potential loss of skilled workers who will be needed come 2017 when the Army plans to remodel the Abrams tank.
"It's not whether they need those tanks, it's how much it costs to restart it," said Pease. General Dynamics, he said, will survive with or without refurbishing tanks over the next three years.
So how did Congress respond to Gen. Odeirno's request to shut down production until 2017?
The answer came in the proposed congressional budget for next year. It includes $181 million for tanks the Army doesn't want or need now. That begs another question: who will likely get the money for the 70 or so tanks covered by that contract when it goes out for bid?
"General Dynamics would probably get the contract for it anyway because they are kind of the ones that are out there leading the way on this," said McKeon.
The Army tank battle sends an unsettling message to the Defense Department, says Sharp, with the defense think tank. But it's a message that may not surprise a public weary from decades of battles and horse-trading that have defined Capitol Hill.
"The fact that the military is having such a hard time getting this relatively small amount of money to be saved, I think is an indication of the huge uphill fight that the military faces when it comes to Congress," Sharp said. "Congress is going to fight tooth and nail to protect defense investments that benefit their constituents and the people that live in their states."
Maybe the next time the generals go up to the Hill, they should take a cue from the well-protected tanks parked in California. Perhaps they might consider wearing body armor.
CNN's Sara Anwar contributed to this report.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/?hpt=hp_c1
Posted by
The U.S. has more than enough combat tanks in the field to meet the nation’s defense needs – so there’s no sense in making repairs to these now, the Army’s chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress earlier this year.http://dailyagenda.org/2012/10/10/congress-set-to-spend-3-billion-on-tanks-but-army-says-it-doesnt-want-them/
If the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new tanks for three years until new technologies are developed, the Army says it can save taxpayers as much as $3 billion.
Army to Congress: Thanks, but no tanks
9OKT12
By Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston
HERLONG, California (CNN) - If you need an example of why it is hard
to cut the budget in Washington look no further than this Army depot in
the shadow of the Sierra Nevada range.CNN was allowed rare access to what amounts to a parking lot for more than 2,000 M-1 Abrams tanks. Here, about an hour's drive north of Reno, Nevada, the tanks have been collecting dust in the hot California desert because of a tiff between the Army and Congress.
The U.S. has more than enough combat tanks in the field to meet the nation's defense needs - so there's no sense in making repairs to these now, the Army's chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress earlier this year.
If the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new tanks for three years until new technologies are developed, the Army says it can save taxpayers as much as $3 billion.
That may seem like a lot of money, but it's a tiny sacrifice for a Defense Department that will cut $500 billion from its budget over the next decade and may be forced to cut a further $500 billion if a deficit cutting deal is not reached by Congress.
Why is this a big deal? For one, the U.S. hasn't stopped producing tanks since before World War II, according to lawmakers.
Plus, from its point of view the Army would prefer to decide what it needs and doesn't need to keep America strong while making tough economic cuts elsewhere.
"When a relatively conservative institution like the U.S. military, which doesn't like to take risks because risks get people killed, says it has enough tanks, I think generally civilians should be inclined to believe them," said Travis Sharp a fellow at the defense think tank, New American Security.
But guess which group of civilians isn't inclined to agree with the generals on this point?
Congress.
To be exact, 173 House members - Democrats and Republicans - sent a letter April 20 to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, urging him to continue supporting their decision to produce more tanks.
That's right. Lawmakers who frequently and loudly proclaim that presidents should listen to generals when it comes to battlefield decisions are refusing to take its own advice.
If the U.S. pauses tank production and refurbishment it will hurt the nation's industrial economy, lawmakers say.
"The combat vehicle industrial base is a unique asset that consists of hundreds of public and private facilities across the United States," the letter said. The outlook for selling Abrams tanks to other nations appears "stronger than prior years," the letter said. But those sales would be "inadequate to sustain the industrial base and in some cases uncertain. In light of this, modest and continued Abrams production for the Army is necessary to protect the industrial base."
Lima, Ohio, is a long way from this dusty tank parking lot. The tiny town in the northwestern part of the Buckeye State is where defense manufacturing heavyweight General Dynamics makes these 60-plus-ton behemoths.
The tanks create 16,000 jobs and involve 882 suppliers, says Kendell Pease, the company's vice-president of government relations and communications. That job figure includes ancillary positions like gas station workers who fill up employees' cars coming and going to the plant.
Many of the suppliers for tank manufacturing are scattered around the country so the issue of stopping production or refurbishment becomes a parochial one: congressional representatives don't want to kill any jobs in their districts, especially as the economy struggles during an election year.
"General Dynamics is not the industrial base," Pease said. "It is small vendors."
But General Dynamics certainly has a stake in the battle of the tanks and is making sure its investment is protected, according to research done by The Center for Public Integrity, a journalism watchdog group.
What its reporters found was General Dynamics campaign contributions given to lawmakers at key times, such as around congressional hearings, on whether or not to build more tanks.
"We aren't saying there's vote buying" said Aaron Metha, one of the report's authors. "We are saying it's true in pretty much all aspects of politics - but especially the defense industry. It's almost impossible to separate out the money that is going into elections and the special interests. And what we found was the direct spike in the giving around certain important dates that were tied to votes."
Pease said General Dynamics is bipartisan in its giving and there is nothing suspicious in the timing of its donations to members of the House and Senate. The giving is tied to when fundraisers are held in Washington - which is also when Congress is in session, he said.
Lawmakers that CNN interviewed denied that donations influenced their decisions to keep the tanks rolling.
Rep. Buck McKeon, a Republican from California and chairman of the House armed services committee, said he didn't know General Dynamics had given him $56,000 in campaign contributions since 2009 until CNN asked him about it.
"You know, the Army has a job to do and we have a job to do," McKeon said. "And they have tough choices because they've been having their budget cut."
McKeon said he's thinking about the long range view. "... If someone could guarantee us that we'll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don't see that guarantee."
Similarly, his Democratic counterpart on the committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, who has received $64,000 from General Dynamics since 2001, said he is worried about the workforce if the Lima plant is closed for three years.
"Listen, we don't want to play Russian Roulette with the national security of this country," Reyes said.
Odierno explained to the committee that it would be cheaper to shut down the tank plant and then restart it in 2017. But his plea was ignored.
"Lima would cost us $2.8 billion just to keep that open and our tank fleet is in good shape and we don't need to because of the great support that we have gotten over the last two years," he told the committee.
But General Dynamics said it will cost a lot less to keep the plant open. Pease said the Army hasn't factored in the huge costs of closing the plant and the potential loss of skilled workers who will be needed come 2017 when the Army plans to remodel the Abrams tank.
"It's not whether they need those tanks, it's how much it costs to restart it," said Pease. General Dynamics, he said, will survive with or without refurbishing tanks over the next three years.
So how did Congress respond to Gen. Odeirno's request to shut down production until 2017?
The answer came in the proposed congressional budget for next year. It includes $181 million for tanks the Army doesn't want or need now. That begs another question: who will likely get the money for the 70 or so tanks covered by that contract when it goes out for bid?
"General Dynamics would probably get the contract for it anyway because they are kind of the ones that are out there leading the way on this," said McKeon.
The Army tank battle sends an unsettling message to the Defense Department, says Sharp, with the defense think tank. But it's a message that may not surprise a public weary from decades of battles and horse-trading that have defined Capitol Hill.
"The fact that the military is having such a hard time getting this relatively small amount of money to be saved, I think is an indication of the huge uphill fight that the military faces when it comes to Congress," Sharp said. "Congress is going to fight tooth and nail to protect defense investments that benefit their constituents and the people that live in their states."
Maybe the next time the generals go up to the Hill, they should take a cue from the well-protected tanks parked in California. Perhaps they might consider wearing body armor.
CNN's Sara Anwar contributed to this report.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/?hpt=hp_c1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)