Pentagon to cut pensions for veterans
Published: 18 August, 2011, 00:18
United States, Washington : US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listens as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta speaks during a conversation hosted by the National Defense University and CNN at the National Defense University in Washington, DC, on August 16, 2011. (AFP Photo / Jewel Samad)
TAGS: Arms, Health, Military, Politics, USA, Government Spending, Economy
With the Pentagon looking for new ways to cut back on costs, a report released this week presents a plan to save $250 billion over the next two decades. All they have to do is take away retirement plans from veterans.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday that any large cuts in defense spending would “terribly weaken” the national security of the US. “This is not about the Defense Department or the State Department,” Panetta told reporters. “This is about the United States of America.”
That being said, the DoD doesn’t plan on curbing the $115 billion it will spend on rust-proofing their fleets during the next five years. Sure the Pentagon announced this week that they would be investigating the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, to make sure they aren’t abusing the government funding that makes up their multi-million dollar contract. And yes, last week also saw the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 unmanned aircraft lose contact with military operators after the Pentagon has put $300 million into the project. Those operations will continue.
Benefits, however, will not.
Under current military procedure, US vets stand to receive a retirement income of half of their salary after completing 20 years of service in the armed forces. A 24-page presentation outlined this week, however, proposes something drastically different. Under the new deal, the “Modernizing the Military Retirement System” would put in place a 401k-style plan that would offer government contributions once vets reach regular retirement age.
While the new initiative would open benefits up to those who serve less than 20 years — and currently out in the cold if they part ways with the Pentagon before that — vets with lengthy tenures with the DoD stand to receive substantially less.
“If you want to maintain the core mission which is to defend the nation and have the strategic capabilities we need, we can't have all their money tied up in retirement programs,” says former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, reports the Daily Mail.
Holtz-Eakin says the new plan could save the US a fortune over the next 20 years as the Pentagon is aiming to cut around $400 billion in spending. In the meantime, however, some are worried that the new plan might discourage Americans from enlisting.
"My main concern is it might change the whole outlook on people wanting to join the service,” veteran Danny Seeman tells WBOC 16.
Panetta, meanwhile, says, “We need to have a responsible conversation about how we are going to prepare ourselves for the future.”
Wednesday also saw the competition of the fiftieth center fuselage for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter manufactured by the Northrop Grumman Corporation for the Pentagon. That would all be fine and dandy if all 20 of the aircraft weren’t currently grounded.
Let’s just hope they aren’t gathering any rust while sitting around. That’s a bill that’s high enough as it is.
17.08.2011, 23:24
6 comments
First responders excluded from 9/11 ceremonyThey were the first on the scene and now they’re the last ones on the guest list – and that’s if they even get invited. First responders that risked their lives are being told there is no room for them at next month's 9/11 ceremony. 9/11 tragedy |
18.08.2011, 01:41
7 comments
China beats out America for Canadian oilMassive resources of oil lay under the surface of Alberta, Canada. With the Great White North already the largest foreign supplier of oil to the US, it would make sense for America to ink a deal that would pipe that product right over the border. |
I had over 20 years involvement with the US government in active military service and civilian service afterwards.
It was time to bail out, and things are only getting worse for those who are involved with the current (b)administration.
If you have something to add to society....take it elsewhere.








So typical. The economic blackmail of the congressmen and senators is plain obvious to see. "Do what we tell you or lose all the money that you get from us for election campaign". These fat cats can't get enough and they are a cancer of the society in USA. Afghanistan is a black hole where the weapons, fuel, lubricants, ammunition and lived get thrown into to keep the weapons production going. Jobs would be lost otherwise and companies that do research would shrink, skills would be lost and more. It'd be along lines of what happened to Russia after USSR collapsed. And the only way to save money is het the weak. Again. Democracy is gone ladies and gentelmen. The dictatorship of the elite is back. History is repeating where king is no longer the only power and the barons, counts and alike begint to rule again. So whats better? Dictatorship of proletariat (the lower masses of people) or of elite which can simply make laws at will and turn a citizen into nothing? You decide.