Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not saying all of a particular party vote a specific way. But I think anyone would agree that there's a certain core of ideologies, that are aligned with each party. Generally those ideologies come to the forefront when a majority vote is needed.
As for Democrats being pro military, I've never seen it in any large doses.
As I said, Democrats have been pro-people programs, Republicans have been pro-weapons programs.
I'm not saying all of a particular party vote a specific way. But I think anyone would agree that there's a certain core of ideologies, that are aligned with each party. Generally those ideologies come to the forefront when a majority vote is needed.
As for Democrats being pro military, I've never seen it in any large doses.
Again, don't confuse support for overall military spending/programs with support for military pay/entitlements.
I'll bet you've seen (or should have seen) "large doses" of Democrats voting for pretty much every military pay or benefit increase.
Democrat Bill Clinton provided Tricare of Life, an expensive military retirement plan. Didn't he (or was it Democrat Jimmy Carter) who provided (or pushed for the change) for "double dipping" by Federal employees who retired from the military - another costly move to our budget.
Everyone is going to have to give up something to help get the budget under control.
Yes, but reducing military retirees (under age 62) payments is not making everyone living in the USA give up something. It is a targeted punishment while continuing the full COLA to social security recipients and increases in welfare, medicaid (not counting medicare), subsized housing etc. If they charged everyone living in the USA $5, then they wouldn't have to take thousands of dollars from that targeted group.
The only bright spot for those taking this reduction in pay, is that once they turn 62 their retired pay is recalculated as if they got a full COLA in those earlier years. And then they get the full COLA on that increased amount every year thereafter.
And remember, the civilian federal workers under FERS don't get any COLA under age 62.
Quote:
OPM.gov: [SIZE=3]
FERS COLA's do not apply to annuitants who are under age 62
And when they do reach age 62, the COLA on their annuity portion of retirement is generally reduced 1% less than the CPI (unless the CPI is less than 2%). But their SS payments get the full COLA like everybody else in the USA.
Quote:
OPM.gov:
[SIZE=3]Generally, FERS COLA's are 1 percent less than the increase in the CPI as determined under the law. However, if the CPI increase is between 2 and 3 percent the FERS COLA is 2 percent. If the actual increase is 2 percent or less, the FERS COLA matches the CPI increase.
Democrat Bill Clinton provided Tricare of Life, an expensive military retirement plan. Didn't he (or was it Democrat Jimmy Carter) who provided (or pushed for the change) for "double dipping" by Federal employees who retired from the military - another costly move to our budget.
Tricare for life was a simple rearranging of benefits. In the past, military retirees had access to military healthcare facilities. They still do, but it's extremely limited as far as priority is concerned. Partly because of the number of base closures during The Cold War draw down. Tricare for Life integrates Tricare with Medicare for military retirees age 65 and over. In civilian terms, it's the equivalent of a Medicare supplementary policy. The difference is that the military retiree doesn't have to pay a premium for it. It's compensation for the government reneging on it's healthcare promise for retirees, when they made it impractical for retirees to receive care from military facilities. Whether the government or the retiree benefits from this is open to debate. At any rate, it wasn't some revolutionary new retirement benefit that greatly enriched the quality of life of retirees. Walking into a military hospital and showing your ID card, was much straight forward in my opinion.
Again, don't confuse support for overall military spending/programs with support for military pay/entitlements.
I'll bet you've seen (or should have seen) "large doses" of Democrats voting for pretty much every military pay or benefit increase.
Well, I'm not going through a bunch of voting records to verify your statement.
My feeling on this particular instance, is that Ryan came up with this modified COLA idea, and Democrat Murray shrugged her shoulders and said OK. The only point I'm making, is that perhaps while Democrats may vote for military personnel issues, they aren't exactly advocates either. And putting a forceful zealot like Ryan with a ambivalent Murray is a recipe for disaster as far as this issue and military retirees go.
As an "old soldier" who was raised in the military beginning in the 40s and who entered the military myself beginning in the 60s shortly after my father retired and spent a fair number of years in it I can attest to the slow but constant degradation of benefits over all the years from the very early 50s, forward. At this stage in life, nothing Washington does surprises me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
