In a time of national belt-tightening, most military veterans are, I believe, amenable to the notion of some reforms to the retirement benefits system that has been in place for many decades. All of us hope, assume and expect that the worthies of the Defense Business Board will make their recommendations to reform that system in the same good faith displayed by those who served their country for decades in peacetime and at war.
Via John Donovan, a chart that portrays the flaw in that assumption.
The most important thing when attempting to solve a problem is to initially scope the problem’s magnitude. As John points out, there is reason to question whether accounting chicanery is going on here:
At issue is the only data chart in the DBB Presentation: Modernizing the Military Retirement System Task Group, Dated July 21, 2011.
Simply put, they don’t adjust the numbers to constant dollars – which would compare oranges to oranges. They instead use year by year actuals, which ends up comparing an aircraft carrier to a kayak. Both are boats, but after that they don’t have a lot in common. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be they compare a Sherman Tank to an M1.
An M1 is more capable and, therefore, more expensive than a Sherman, even in constant year dollars. But we’re not talking technology, we’re talking people, whose capabilities and requirements have remained more or less stable over the years. So really, the issue is comparing an M1 tank procured in 1941 valued dollars (should that have been possible) to one procured in 2011, seventy inflation years later.
This is binary: If the DBB is not clever enough to use net present value calculations to determine the time value of money over a long planning horizon, they are not clever enough to perform the work that they have been charged with. If they deliberately declined to use those calculations to suit some political end, they are too clever by half.
These are the only possible conclusions.
When Congress ditches their retirement plan for a TSP, then they can suggest the military do likewise.
And just exactly how long can you hold your breath, XBrad? Somehow, oh, I can’t figure out why, can’t quite put my finger on it–just a gut instinct, I guess–my money’s NOT on you..
For the record, VX, I’m a former servicemember, not a retired servicemember. I’m not gonna get paid either way.
I’m willing to consider the possibility that the current retirement structure is not sustainable. But I can think of a LOT of other places that need to go away before we decide we can’t pay military retirement checks.
I was under the impression you were retired.
Military retirement is causing pressure for now because of the cold war bulge. That will correct itself over the next 20 years and we will reach a point where it was in the early 60s. This is just leftwing anti-military mongering.
“This is just leftwing anti-military mongering.”
I wish it were, but it isn’t.
As a (leftist) labor negotiator in another life, I used to fight for workers to gain and to retain Defined Benefit Plans for life – which is what military retirement essentially is. But it was a difficult and losing battle. In the private sector, Defined Benefit Pensions are rapidly becoming obsolete. Many have been terminated, or changed to a 401k.
Fortunately in the Public Sector (aka government workers, including military), Defined Benefit Plans (Pensions) still exist, but are now too under attack. But it is not the Left attacking them.
Indeed the Wisconsin debacle is a result of many state government workers – firefighters, teachers, police, and state workers having their pensions under threat, just as we now see military retirement under threat. They are pro-pension. So please don’t blame it on the Left, as all government pensions are threatened, rightly or not.
“This is just leftwing anti-military mongering.”
QM – I wish it were, but it isn’t.
As a (leftist) labor negotiator in another life, I used to fight for workers to gain and to retain Defined Benefit Plans for life – which is what military retirement essentially is. But it was a difficult and losing battle. In the private sector, Defined Benefit Pensions are rapidly becoming obsolete. Many have been terminated, or changed to a 401k.
Fortunately in the Public Sector (aka government workers, including military), Defined Benefit Plans (Pensions) still exist, but are now too under attack. But it is not the Left attacking them.
Indeed the Wisconsin debacle is a result of many state government workers – firefighters, teachers, police, and state workers having their pensions under threat, just as we now see military retirement under threat. They are pro-pension. So please don’t blame it on the Left, as all government pensions are threatened, rightly or not.
Wrong again, as usual.
First, those who serve in the armed forces do so under conditions far different than just about any other job you care to name, including law enforcement and fire-fighting. Claiming that soldiers, sailors, and Marines are equivalent to bureaucratic chair-jockeys whose most dangerous moment is biting into a stale twinkie is fatuous, if not insulting to our warfighters. Even the “easy” services like the Air Force are regularly posted to vacation spots like Thule, and endure long separations from their families.
Second, the plan was designed to encourage long-term careers in the armed forces. It is a historical fact that experience is one of the most dominant deciders in winning wars. Long-term vets win wars. Not only that, but service members must re-apply for each tour of service. In direct opposition to that, “public sector” employees are all union, hence are nearly un-fireable. You don’t get the DoD benefits unless you can demonstrate you are still useful, instead of the seniority-queens you find in unions.
BTW, Flit, I’m not anti-union, I’m anti-”public sector” unions. Those people don’t have the right strike; if they want that they can quit sucking on the government teat.
Casey, you’re shooting a strawman.
Flit is absolutely right that Defined Benefit pension plans are rapidly disappearing from the business world because the underlying economics were not sound, and it is clear now that they cannot be funded, at least not the plans as written.
The only place defined benefit still has traction is in government pensions, where the assumption has always been that the taxpayer can foot the bill. $14T later, that assumption is now clearly as unsound as investing in real estate CDOs was for corporate pension fund managers. Something’s gotta give.
We can argue all day about why one would want to offer defined benefit plans to military or police over OSHA inspectors or teachers. There’s no argument that the cost of the military program is damned small in the big picture. But it doesn’t change the fact that defined benefit plans are hugely expensive and that all of them, including ours, will be examined closely.
I don’t know of a defined benefit plan in the private sector, these days. They are long gone there, and exist only in government.
Sadly, you are wrong about the anti-military attitudes among the left. The military stands astride the road they need to take to get to their idea of a leftist paradise.
One day, you may realize the road to that leftist paradise was taken by Russia. It dead ended at Stalinism. Human nature has never been repealed and will not be overcome until the Kingdom of God has come to a new Heaven and New Earth.
It’s interesting when you do the math that the average retiree was making $2,716 in 1960, and now makes $3,562 (in 1960 $$). That’s about a 25% increase in retiree pay in over 50 years. Of course the numbers in today’s $$ are interesting as well in that the average retiree is making $25,817. I wonder what Congress’s retirement benefits look like.
After you factor in the two Clinton era “adjustments” to the algorithm for computing the inflation index, it’s more like a wash, if not a net loss for current retirees.
Too clever by half. Decidedly so.
Actually it’s about 31%…
Math was never my strong suit.
As a USAF MSgt who retired in 1985 I draw considerably less than that of the quoted “average retiree.” (sigh) It really sucks to be below average.
Semi, I can bet that teh congresscritters won’t stint on themselves. The need to ba able to maintain their dignity after all.
Lex, I vote for the latter. The sheeple are very easily swayed when you present such doctored data to them. Leftist politics ia what it’s all about now, and they’ve had it in for the troops for a very long time.
Les Aspin is smiling down on them… Or up, as the case may be.
The graph certainly looks disingenuous if not downright deceitful to me too.
Also what is very strange is the link on the bottom of the graph for “Dollar Value Source.”
http://mykindred.com/cloud/TX//Documents/dollar/
That is part of a genealogy site. Strange indeed.
Money + Government = Buffoonery. They will cook the books and rig the number to serve their political masters.
The Government is still trying to rook the members of Sabo et al V. United States as all PTSD cases before Iraqi Freedom were rated at 50% – IR Vets only got 10% – 20%…That is why there is a class action in place.
While I understand the fiscal realities, we have to make an effort to provide something for those who were disabled by the conflict. What that “something” will be is a whole other matter….It is to weep.
By my quick calculations and their numbers for inflation, the 255-some thousand retirees in 1960 received ~$26.6K/yr in 2008 $’s. The 1.9M-some retirees in 2008 received ~$25.8K/yr in 2008 $’s. Where’s the problem? The chart is down-right wrong – or flawed in the words of our scribe.
Check your math. The correct value for 2009 in 1960 dollars is $3,562.88.
You’re missing the point. Some have pointed to the exponential nature of the red line as evidence that defense retirement spending is unsustainable and must be reformed. The blue line, and your calculations, use inflation adjusted numbers to show that an apples-to-apples comparison of retirement spending then and now hasn’t changed much.
The only difference between your numbers and the chat is that you converted everything into 2008 dollars while the chart put it in 1960 dollars. Both are equally valid.
There is a simple solution to all this, but I don’t think y’all are ready to hear it yet.
Paul
You never know PLQ.
Ok, some are more ready than others.
Paul
Yep. Next year you vote for the most conservative person in the primary. Next November you vote for the SOB with an R by their name. If you have to hold your nose, do it! Then spend the next two years convincing your neighbors to stop being goram idiots.
Victory is a ratchet. We got into this mess because our enemies understood that. We won’t get out of it until we learn it.
Damn near everyone in Congress with an R by his name has told me to screw off, just as surely as everyone with a D. The R and D thing, surely, we can understand is just a Punch and Judy show to keep us preoccupied while our wallets are emptied.
Now, after hanging a few of them by piano wire, the rest might be willing to listen. I’m partial to that USMC teaching that sometimes a shotgun IS the appropriate tool to kill a fly, because it sure gets the attention of the other flies.
The purpose of the primary is to have a candidate that represents the will of the party. If the elected members of your party do not represent your values it is because you have failed to convince the majority of your party to vote your way in the primary. Fix your failings before you talk about stringing people up.
If you cannot convince the majority without resorting to violence you have no business wielding any sort of power.
The elected members of both parties (neither of which is “mine”) have made quite clear what “values” they will represent–primarily, the value of gross fraud and grand (as in, “Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king”) theft. Nice rhetorical trick, though, trying to turn it into something about me, rather than about the two parties that have colluded, whether by design or gross incompetence, in stealing this country blind down to your grandchildren’s generation for the benefit of a very very few, who have no loyalty whatsoever to this precious electoral system. You have been raped and robbed by our regal class, and you want to vote on which one was nicer to you. Good luck with that.
As for me, I am not interested in wielding any sort of power save the liberty to govern myself, something neither party is willing to grant any of us, and I have to wonder what could possibly have even suggested to you that I desire power. Project much?
Bah.
Some times there are no good options. Some times you only get to chose between bad and shitty. Not choosing is the same as choosing shitty (I’ve never understood why groups boycott elections. Decisions are made by those who show up).
You were the one who brought up hanging people with piano aire. Historically there have been very few volunteers for that particular procedure, to accomplish your goals qute a bit of political power is required.
I get that your fed up with the system. So am I. But you’ve decided to forgo fixing it and have retreated to murder fantasies. You’re not dead yet, grab the line and heave around.
I hope that this drops in the right place, but I’m not sure it will. Perhaps Lex can adjust as needed.
Americans have thoroughly proved to me that they are sheep. That they have not responded to the theft of their country–the brazen theft, built on fraud and deceit–by rising up in violence used to look to me like a testimony to their self-discipline and sobriety. More and more, it looks to me like something between abject cowardice and complete stupidity. The latter makes more sense, given that nearly every aspect of our American lives consists of being taught to get in our place, obey, and maybe a few cookies will get thrown our way. But I could be wrong.
Grab the line and heave on what? The same old game? You keep acting as if there is a lick of difference between the two parties. The only difference is one might use a little vaseline and the other might buy me dinner first (with money from your children’s wallets).
Murder fantasies? Get over yourself, go play with the rest of the sheep and convince them to keep going along with the game. It’s worked so well so far.
Ok Zane, we have to start with first principles.
First rule: People respond to incentives. If you control a person’s incentives you control him.
Second rule: A politician’s job is to get reelected.
Third rule: A politician cannot be reelected if his actions deviate from the majority of his party and constituent electorates.
From this we conclude that if we can control the majority of either the primary or general electorates we can control the behavior of the politician. Since the primary electorate is smaller and more hemogenous ideologically it makes sense to focus on controlling that. Given the historically low turnouts in primaries we can gain control simply by convincing our ideological brethren to vote in the primaries.
Zane, every time you refuse to vote you let the country slip further into the abyss. We haven’t reached the point of no return yet, but we’re close. I want to turn the country around, but I can’t do it alone.
Back in the Stone Age one of the required readings in my Business Statistics class was a book titled: “How to Lie With Statistics.” I’m beginning to think the members of the Defense Business Board read it also.
I am absolutely convinced that nobody can consider themselves educated without having read that book. It’s available in ebook form for less than $10 and it’s less than 150 pages. The ROI in both time and money is immense.
Like Nero, Congress and especially the Republicans cum Tea Party fiddle on paid vacation, while the country founders in dire straits. The party of “No” they seem to want to do nothing to help, hoping for this Administration (and the country, I might add) to fail. Worse than fiddling, that is throwing fuel to the fire in hopes of a regime change in 2012.
A most recent national poll found the Tea party is now more unpopular with Americans than atheists and Muslims! They only have themselves to blame.
As for Perry, as do many politicians, he flip-flops by telling people what they want to hear rather than truth:
Perry Ponzi Scheme Venn Diagram
I know it’s from another thread, but your comment is so ignorant I have to respond.
First, let me remind the slow learners that the Democrats had almost-unbeatable majorities in both houses, as well as the White House, for two years, during which they couldn’t even pass a stinking budget. And Flit wants to talk about “fiddling.” During that same time all the Obama administration did to help was create a leviathan health-care financial monstrosity while shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars to loyal partisan “fat cats” like the owners of GE, the lawyers and the unions, especially AFL-CIO & SEIU. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars “stimulus’ bought us 9%+ unemployment while TROTUS went on expensive vacations and campaign trips.
Two YEARS of nearly-unassailable control and the Democrats didn’t do crap, except run up another five TRILLION dollars of national debt. Financially-responsible citizens argued these insane expenditures were literally just that, and were slandered as the party of “no.” By the way, Flit, nice echo of Obama’s (leaked) planned offensive when he returns to DC (notice I didn’t say “to work”). Blame everything on the other party. As usual.
As for your (unlinked) survey, I call BS, unless you want to provide facts to back that up.
…And Perry isn’t flipping; the current setup is a Ponzi scheme, and he does want to fix it, in contrast to the Democrats, who have demagogued the Hell out of the issue every time anyone proposes a fix. Remember how they napalmed Bush ’43 on that after ’04? All the Dems can do is chant “more taxes!” over & over. That’s a great way to stimulate a weak economy.
Sorry, wrong thread….
Dig around http://www.shadowstats.com if you haven’t.
- recommended to me by folks in the industry.
More of the same trick… lots to consider. Especially the inflation numbers.
“Defense Business Board” – Only bad things will come from something with a title like that. Remember McNamara? Remember Aspin?
“As for your (unlinked) survey, I call BS, unless you want to provide facts to back that up.”
Ask and you shall receive, my good man Casey:
“Nearly half of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the tea party movement.”
And “Hot Air’s” attempt at denial of,
“NYT Poll: Tea Partiers less popular than Muslims, atheists” gives more basis.
Always happy to oblige.
CNN and NYT…LOL…
What was that Airboss said about lying with statistics.
personally, I don’t put much faith in any survey, no matter who ran or commissioned it. If CNN or NYT is responsible, that’s just another reason to distrust it.
One of the things that bothers me about this entire debate is how often the news media states that the 20 year retirement is 50% of the service member’s salary. Even Fox News repeated this (I sent them an email pointing out that it 50% of base pay but I never saw a correction). Since most people outside the military are ignorant of the militay pay and allowance system, part of the pushback on this needs to be some examples showing what percentage it actually is of the total pay service members receive.
The Defense Business Board apparently has a particularly gullible audience in mind. Like my sister-in-law.