It is a sad day when the justification for destroying many military members hopes and dreams of serving their country for 20 years and being rewarded with a fairly substantial retirement package that can give some hope of stability after what can only be described as a hectic life as one serving.

To use the justification that this will benefit all who serve instead of just people whom manage to make it to 20 years is poor. It is poor because those that serve only a short time period are going to still be young and most likely go to college using their great GI bill benefit. That benefit is significant compared to number of years served (appropriately so) however, someone serving 20 years doesn't reap quite that same comparable benefit except in the form of the current military retirement setup. Yes they still get the GI bill, but reasonably that will not be something that everyone will want to do (go back to school to start a new career) or even be able to. Whereas a younger person who served less but garnered those GI bill benefits, gets quite a jump start on their ability to provide for themselves and their family by attaining college benefits at a young age.

AnonyT

To spend 20 years serving and risking your life and giving up stability in exchange for continuing to provide extensive knowledge that only an experienced person can provide for a retirement benefit as it currently stands is incredibly fair.

Another thing you have to remember is that base pay which is what retirement pay is paid a % of is lower than what a military member makes effectively. It does not include the benefits such as housing or food allowance or even bonuses that some people in the military receive. So in fact while a 50% retirement at 20 years appears up front to be large, often times it is actually more in the 25-33% range of what someone might actually be making with all entitlements prior to retirement.

To say that this is unfair is comparing it to the civilian world in which not many jobs have quite the same level of risk/difficulties that a military person goes through.

'The traditions of paying service members of the same rank and experience identical base salaries may need to end, Gates said, as part of larger effort to control costs and better reward those whose skills are in highest demand according to a June report by the Virginian-Pilot.'
It's not tradition, it's a soldiers WORTH as he fights for his country. What will the US do when there are no military to fight for the country because of stupidity. Being in the military and attaining rank is just like a job. You are paid at what your need is and if there is no need for the military, there is no need for 'a commander in chief' so let's do away with that title and name him prince or king. Suppose they gave a war and nobody came, well that is what they are looking at...

I completely disagree with this proposal. Yes, I am a military member. So, some may see my opinion as biased. However, the military is not a "corporate" industry. We are in the business of national security, and serve in international affairs to keep everyone safe and protect our freedom. We lay our lives on the line every day. Thousands of military members die, and they do so to protect America. Who are they (anyone) to compare the military to a civilian business and reduce/remove benefits? In my opinion, if someone serves in the military, they risk their lives. They also could accumulate "years" of time away from their family after they have put in 20 years of service. They have no say in the matter, they are ordered to to so. I believe that a military member who sacrifices so much of their own life would be 110% (yes, I said 110%) worthy of the retirement benefits they have earned. They should be entitled to receive their benefits immediately after retiring, not after 65. Again, this is not a civilian business, this is a "lay your life on the line" business. How many civilian people do you know that would go to war and risk their lives for their country?

'In my opinion, if someone serves in the military, they risk their lives. They also could accumulate "years" of time away from their family after they have put in 20 years of service. They have no say in the matter, they are ordered to to so.'
You said a mouthful. I didn't mean to compare the military to a civilian based pay but I was trying to point out that a civilian based company pays according to worth and the military is much more than that. They protect and defend and deserve what their salt is worth. I agree with you point and the military should be paid upon their retirement according to what they have earned and defended their country for.

I am a military spouse and have stood by solider for 7 years. If the government feels that the military retirement should now resemble civilian benefits then I say my husband should have civilian hours. If we have to put money into a 401K like the cilivian workforce the he should work "normal" hours. I believe that would be a 9 to 5 job, weekends off and holidays. How about no more year deployments and overseas tours? I mean really people, the military retirement is something our soliders earn from all their sacrifices. My husband works nights, weekends, holidays, and miss important moments in our children's lives to defend this country. As far as I am concerned this is a slap in the face to our men and woman who fight for the American people and I for one is ashamed of our government. If this goes through my husband will seperate in order to put in 20 years into a better retirement plan somewhere else.

There is a term for what the new retirement plan means to currently serving members... Its the old "Bait and Switch" where something is offered and then once payment has been made the compensation is different (usually less) than agreed upon initially. I am an active duty service member with 16 years in the Army. Now with 4 years left to retirement they tell me that my retirement will only be worth 16 years of service at 20 and will acrue no more benefit. Well the joke is on you then Army because im a warrant officer and i can serve 30 years from my appointment date. I became a Warrant after 13 years in service at the age of 31 which means i can stay in the Army until im 61 years old. I figure after a while i'll be too old or broke to do very much anyways right!! So why should i get out.. Once im way too broke to do anything, i can get medically retired which as far as ive read, the medical retirement system hasnt changed. So lets all just stay in as long as we can until they medically retire us and we get our initially agreed on retirement compensation.

Look at this again, it is about what you are entitled to when you get out and there may not be anything left to retire on comfortably. I agree about the 'bait and switch' but try and prove that case against the govt. Congratulations on your years of service, and as a Warrant officer. I hope it pays off for you in the end.

Even with the current retirement the military is a not a great career for most,,,,,,forget all the slick advertising and phony PR you see. It's a combination of slavery and the prison system where you literally sign your life away with a contract for some incentives to keep you in. Life in the military is HARD TIME. Who is going to take a proposed 10-year stint seriously when it's no longer a rewarding career option? Nobody is going to put up with the BS to make the mission happen. There will be nothing but backlash and fending off disgusted servicemembers

I've been married to a marine for almost 10 years and our future depends on his retirement. I don't know much about politics and to be honest because I don't understand it all, I don't really pay attention until it effects me directly. I am so upset by how things are starting to turn out for all the military service members and their families. My only question is what can we do about it?!

Dear USA,
After giving you 20 years of mine and my family's lives, DO NOT BETRAY ME!!!!

Way, to go congress as usual you are turn your back on the military. Yet we are still at war. But you can rest assured that congress will get there pensions after serving as little as 2 yrs. The military has earned that retirement thru blood sweat and tears.

Our government is sad, to even propose this. Remember what happened two weeks ago; all of those service members lost their lives in Afghanistan (30). Put civilians over in harms way then! Foolish, this proposal sickens me to my core! Everyone involved in this decision should spend a couple of months in the hot zone! I'd bet they'd change their mind then.

I cannot believe that our government is proposing this. If this is the case, then why not have each one of the ones that vote yes on this, do a year or why not 6 months in the Army and see just how they can live off what the military makes and see what each serviceman/woman and their families sacrifice while serving. I am a military spouse and I have been supporting my husband for 16 years of the 22 that he has been in. Yes, he is eligible for retirement, but he loves the Army and is willing to stay in as long as he can. I as well work 40+ hours a week and come home to take care of everyday choas in life while he is deployed and do not complain because this is the life that he and I have chosen but to get slapped in the face by our own government is just sickening. Why doesn't the politicians take a cut in pay or better yet let them live off what the military makes in a year. LETS SEE THEM DO THAT!! as well as be seperated from their family!!!!!

There is many ways the government can cut back. instead of retirement. As the NCOIC of budget for 3 yrs. The watse of money I was ordered to spend was watseful. Example a leather chair for the commander used once a week cost was $1800. Digital clocks that cost $2300 so he knows the time in other locations. Why couldn't we just use the cheap $15 clock that is round and put the location under the clock. I had a budget of $650,000 to spend in 09, half of it was wasted on things we did not need. They should control the spending of the units better than what they are doing, make them justify it even more. We had $40.000 to spend one day before it was taken away. We ordered new second chance vest that we did not need we just bought 100 of them 6 months earlier. The commander also had us buy a new camera system for the gates you would think great. Wrong he used it to watch the patrolmen sitting inside the gates he had tvs installed in his and the chiefs office. We spent $120,000 night vison system we never used it, sat in storage for 3 yrs. Another issue is how much our leadership waste in spending. I use to work at Andrews. One day we got a document sent to us by mistake via fax (the cost of the 2 hr trip). One of our congress leaders took a trip from Andrews using a one of our jets to fly down to Langley AFB. For them to fly to Langley cost the goverment $32,000 just to fly down there and back. The person was not even one of the big boys. They should have driven.

If the government is going to direct the 401k, then it is a Social Security-type scam, only worse; with SS they are simply spending your money (lending it to themselves) and paying what they owe out of the General Fund. Here, they have the capacity to lend it to themselves, then repay nothing because, "Well, if you must know, we made a bad investment with your money. Sorry."

The current pay system is structured as it is, not because 80% of the boys who went ashore in the first wave died, but because the life is rough. Historically, 65% of all casualties are not combat related; they are the results of accidents and disease... some of which doesn't show up for years.

I was never in a much danger from my enemies as I was from my friends. It was my friends issued me a broken rifle. It was my friends issued me defective ammo. It was my friends put a stray round in the ammo dump, my friends that mistook the sentry for an enemy, my friends that threw blasting-caps into the crowd. It was my friends said, "I don't see anybody out there. Don't bother me again." The second time I came back from hospital my Sergeant told me if I went again, he would blow my ass away. He said it three times, on three occasions; once was when I was asking if he was serious.

Sixty-five percent of my risk was from my friends. It was serious risk and I had no choice... so I want a serious pension in the same way; without choice.