Burt,

So sad, so true.

I suppose if you ask a typical 6th grader if they wanted a slurpee right now they could have one but this summer all the slurpees will be gone due to so much demand now, they'd still say 'gimme one'.

Too bad that's the mentality of way too many voters these days.

BTW - Looks like the enforcement arm of Dodd-Frank will be up and running shortly, never mind the legality of his placement. Obama's pick, while under no judicial restraint, will waste no time attacking any private concern who donated to any conservative cause. This is going to be a bloodbath.

Land of the free? Hardly.

Burt,

I am in total agreement with your assesment of BHO and what a second regime will do to our former republic. However, I am one of those conservatives that do think another RINO as POTUS will only slow the descent of America to a full socialist country.

The reason a RINO has been getting elected is a reflection of what America has become: a country brimming with whiney, entitlement mentality loafs. The American spirit of self-reliance is all but dead to seventy five percent of Americans. One in fifty school age children is raised like we were - inculcated with values of the America of Washington and Jefferson (education, hard work and self reliance).

With the exception of my military service I have been working in the private sector my whole life. I have never been in a union and my employer does not provide a pension. I am on my own when (if) I ever retire; and there is not going to be any "Social Security" check coming my way when I reach the magic age of 65 (not far off).

That said, I will still be forced to vote for whomever has a 'R' after his name in the coming election. As you said, it's better than that the Marxist by far.

Burt, if Obama was my neighbor, I would introduce him to Carrie and make sure he invited her over a bar-b-que.

Burt,

Those in the military today have been promised a pension, and it is a great incentive along with the education opportunities, to stay for 20 and retire with 50% of base pay and Tricare. This comes at a price, betting you can survive for 20 years, particularly in these dangerous time. Add to that the pay often qualifies the troops for welfare. Reservists are now facing the same dangers, but must wait until age 60 to collect, a bargain for the taxpayers, and a totall misuse of the gauard and reserves, who are supposed to supplement the military, not be the military. If pay and allowances were raised, the retirement pension for military could be revised, but with the defying of death daily, and current ops tempo, I could hardly disagree more with your assesment. The military earns every penney of their pensions. Our military is always a target for the budget cut, but one of the few things the Constitution allows. If you want to cut pensions, lets start with Congress and their bloated system. By their performance they should be paying back money.

RM, you have it correct. One only has to look at Bush the Younger. He gave us increased socialized medicine (Medicare Part D), No Child Left Behind, the TSA (instead of following what Israel does and very effectively), ban on incandescent light bulbs, the Patriot Act (good by Bill of Rights), tried to shove Harriet Myers as a Supreme down our throats, pushed amnesty for illegal aliens (oops undocumented workers),etc. etc. etc. And that great conservative, Tom Delay, kept the vote open in the House so that he could break (oops twist) enough arms to get Part D passed. Don't forget Bush the Elder and the New World Order.

So what's the difference between laying off soldiers vs. police or firemen?

Oh, yeah - liberals hate the military. My guess would be that the military are the ones fighting for our freedom.

The big difference between laying-off soldiers vs. police or firemen is that Fire and Police have unions that contribute to political campaigns.

So far you have it right Burt---but disagree with your thinking of the military. Also the "doing the same thing over and over again to fix the same problem, but hoping for a different result'. If people voted with logic, we might get a different result, but they don't. The best thing that could happen is to let Barry finish the job, and totally destroy the country. That way we could start over again and try to do it the right way, or wind up like Greece as you say and see if the people really want to take the country back. So far I don't see any indication of that happening, with the exception of the people who read this paper, and they are so few that its im-material. I wonder how many people wanted to be Captain of the Titanic when she was going down because they thought they might do a better job? Maybe you are supporting the 'party vote line' rather than finding someone who is willing to be different? We see how often they change PM's in Isreal along the 'party line', however the situation is different in the fact they do it to survive. We have not reached that time yet, but at the current rate we are going it won't be long. If you don't like the govt. taking your taxes as you say, then don't give it to them. They rule by fear, and fear alone is the most destructive force known to man, the with exception of paranoia. Over 40,000 laws were put into effect on Jan.1.12 around the country and most of them are stupidity in action. Proud to be an American is mostly a patriotic saying, but living like an American is a way of life. Everyone should try it once in awhile.

Burt,

As far as the military is concerned, I do have to strongly disagree with you. If they put in the 20+ years, then they deserve their pension. The military is a very dangerous job. I am an Army Vet and wish I could have been able to put in my 20yrs. I am unemployed and having an extremely difficult time finding employment. I only wish I had a pension to fall back on.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you are saying. Liberals are destroying the very foundation our country was built upon. I am praying that Obama is not re-elected and people like Pelosi, Reid, and so on are voted out of office.

As a resident of California I see the proverbial writing on the wall, Liberals have been in charge for so long enacting one mindless law/regulation after another without regard to unintended consequences, their obvious goal is a social utopia where those that have should pick up the tab for those that don't ad infinitum. Obama and his posse of Socialists/Marxists envision the same utopia. What America was and stood for is about to become extinct.

Absolutely right on Burt! Shout it from the rooftops!

Burt,

I have always been and always will be Very Proud To Be An American. I did not vote for Obama and I don't know of any Proud, True Americans who did either. It is those who are not Proud To Be Americans who voted for Obama. Michelle said it herself when the her bum husband was Inagurated by stating that she was "finally proud to be an American". I am proud to live in a Great Country that may be against the ropes but can still come back out swinging. Yes, the liberals have taken This Great Country that was built on opportunity and hard work where anyone who was willing to put their nose to the grindstone could accomplish anything that they set out to achieve. That's the America that needs to be brought back. It hasn't totally been lost. It's time we push off of the ropes and deliver the one two that knocks liberalism out. No more entitlements for anyone. We should take care of our Military personell who are willing to make it a career. However, since they receive free room and board if they live on base or a generous living allowance to live off of base then maybe offering them a 20% match 401K would be better. As far as their health care goes then I do believe that if you retire from the Military then your healthcare should be provided for life. We can't afford the pensions anymore. Part of being in the Military is learning and handling responsibility, which should mean being responsible for your retirement. Yes the Constitution does say the Federal Government has to fund the Military, but it does not say to pay a gut who is retiring from the Military at age 39 or 40 is to recieve $2,000 dollars per month for 40 years. I don't know, maybe even give each retiree $200,000 tax free for them to do with what they wish. That would still be cheaper than the pension. The real issue is not what we spend on Military pensions though. It is Medicare and Social Security going to 20 year olds who claim that they are disabled when the only disability that they have is an addiction to T.V., video games, cigaretts, and potato chips. Laziness is not a disability so let's stop susadizing it.

Burt, great column as always. As a 28year vet in the military (reserve), with four involuntary callups (two to Iraq), I can say i whole heartedly concur with your assessment on military and government pensions. The Reserve members have to wait until age 60 to draw their retirement and their retirement is a fraction of that of active duty counterparts (pro-rated for actual servcie time). I believe active duty pensions should start at age 60 like mine. I bleed the same, and I have to bear the added hardship of leaving and returning to my job while maintaining a positive relationship with my employer who is stretched thin to cover my absence every other year.

I concur with your other points as well. I would like to invite all readers to do their part to help restore your pride! ;-) Elect a conservative who will reign in government spending and start our debt clock spinning in reverse.

Rod

Burt, I agree with everything you write. How nice to find such a bright fellow writing a regular column!

Burt: I've often said that I'm proud that at least some of my ancestors had been here probably by the time the Mayflower landed.

One of my ancestors jumped ship (a British one) and swam to the New England shores some years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Eventually one of his offspring and one of the Native Americans jumped on their own bandwagon and began their own (if peculiar) tribe.

I'm proof of that. I'm glad my English ancestor had the great good sense to become AWOL, thus bringing about part of this brave new world.

Mostly I'm proud to be an American. And awfully lucky.

People who don't like America and aren't proud of America should mount their respective asses and ride on off into another orbit for all I care.

Keep on keeping on, Burt!

Jeannette

Another good article, Burt.

rod & ct-tom: Thanks for your support.

To others: I realized that when I wrote the part about military pensions, I would anger some of my readers. I don't mind doing that because I'm not running for office. You will notice that I called for higher wages.

When I write an article that says one of the stupidest things we ever did in this country was to allow civil servants to unionize, it is easy to predict that most of my readers will agree. But all I can do is write my honest opinion, and let the chips fall where they may.

Although I support our military and despise Obama and Paul for wanting to cut military funding, that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt the country to start paying off lifetime pensions to people who haven't even reached middle age.

I don't think any money should be spared when it comes to health care for those who have suffered mental or physical injury in the service of our country, but that is, thank God, a small minority of those who serve. There are also a great many members of the military who simply prepare meals, hand out uniforms and play band instruments.

On the other hand, I agree that politicians should not receive pensions. Or, if they do, they should be prorated according to their length of service. They should collect them only if they serve no more than one or, at the most, two terms in the House or Senate. I'm afraid that's the only way we're ever going to get these people to agree to term limits.

Burt

Burt: I have often thought that a good compromise in military retirement would be to have the military earn their pension according to the current rules, but pay ALL pensions the way they pay the Guard/Reserve pensions: to start collecting at age 60 [or maybe even 65]. Proper recognition of service and responsible fiscal deferment of benefits. For full disclosure, I am retired from the Guard/Reserve, and tough as circumstances were between my retirement date and my retirement pay, I am glad that I could always look forward to the day the retirement pay kicked in, even if I weren't getting it right away, like so many of my peers.

The "Left" has been increasingly successful at developing its voter ranks by dumbing them down in our schools to where logic and intelligence is replaced by feelings.

The qualifications of our President are no longer even considered as part of the voting criteria. We are outnumbered in the millions by those that want to feel good compared to those that think.

Appealing to the masses of uneducated and telling them you can offer them a better life if the rich would just pay their fair share sounds like a great idea.

Who is going to vote for the guy that says you have to work for the things you want when the other guy says you could have all that, and more, if those pesky rich people just weren't so greedy.

The OWS group was just the tip of an iceberg of uneducated liberals floating beneath their sea of entitlement. The numbers are in their favor, we can only hope the electoral process is successful in limiting their madness.

@MARINE-

You may have hit it right on the head when you said the best thing to happen might be to let Barry finish the job...

On the other hand, I don't think we'd be better off under martial law with that doofus still in the White House. But that just may be one of his ultimate goals, the bastard would suspend any elections until the streets were once again safe, like in 10 years or so...

Burt,

I see your point about military pensions, but your math isn't nearly as good as you think it is if you think the taxpayer would see a net savings by raising military pay now to decrease or eliminate pensions later. Your way would almost certainly cost more than the current system. Here's why:

To become vested for a military pension you have to be in for 20 years to get even one penny of it (unless you're discharged for medical reasons). In the case of Guardsmen and Reservists, you usually have to wait years or even decades after the end of your service to collect any of it. And when you die the payments stop, or never even start if you die young. It's not an asset you get to pass along to your heirs like money up-front would be.

A military pension is not a gift: it is deferred compensation. Even on the active-duty side of the house it's a good deal for the taxpayers. Less than 15% of the people who join the military stick around long enough to retire, which means the vast majority are earning their way toward a pension the taxpayers will never have to pay. (Expect that number to drop to around 7% now that the Iraq War is over.) The screaming good deal for the taxpayers is that 85% - 93% of service members do the work, face the dangers, draw only the un-deferred portion of their pay, and never collect the deferred part because they don't stay in long enough to retire. Only by being a "lifer" do you get the deferred part of your pay... later... if you live that long. I can't think of very many places where an employer can defer a large part of your pay for 6-18 years, decide they don't need you any more, and send you away so that you never get ANY of the pay you deferred. The military does that all the time. George Bush, Sr, did it to me and a few tens of thousands of my closest friends after the first Gulf War. (I came back in later and finished my 20, hence the (Ret) after my moniker.)

If you pay everyone enough to offset what a full pension would cost in exchange for the pension later, the taxpayers would be paying those 85% of "non-lifers" the same as if they were "lifers."

Simply put, you didn't do the math on this before you wrote it.

6 year Marine vet, almost 20 year firefighter and I agree completely. There is no reason for any public servant to be "entitled" to a crazy pension. Increase my pay 20% and I'll invest my money myself. No problem. Thanks Burt, another good one.

Tks mmccrindle for standing up for us, and Army Offficer (Ret) for the details. Burt, your argument is not without merit, but the devil is in those details; e.g. “current ops tempo”. A Navy amphibious ready group consisting of 3 ships with some 4000 personnel including embarked Marines will be returning in February having then spent almost eleven months OUTUS, and at sea all that time except for limited port visits. Normal ship deployments are nearly eight months in duration, and they occur about every 18 months. The flagship of that ARG had been “home” less than a year. With limited exceptions monthly base pay remains the same, at home or deployed. Civilian workers living ashore in a similar situation would receive premium pay for anything over a 40 hours-a-week plus incentives for serving in foreign areas and under hazardous conditions. With drills, operational exercises, watches and maintenance work, life aboard ship is more like a 25 hour day than an 8 hour one. And in the Indian Ocean in the summer, that’s in an environment akin to living in a large Dempsey dumpster with the atmosphere of an overheated sauna Half pay after 20 years of that is a pittance compared to what Congressmen and the judiciary draw for a cushy work environment, a very limited form of labor (when’s BHO’s next tee time!), and a hazard index near zilch.

"a great many members of the military who simply prepare meals" Burt, aboard ship everyone in those support billets has a battle station apart from their regular duties which is an integral part of the ship’s organization for combat.

Burt,

Thanks again -

Each morning between 3 and 6 am while I let the dogs out I open the Patriot Post and click on the "Opinion" button. It is always a treat to see a Prelutsky piece. Frankly anymore it is only your's, Sowell's, William's, Blackwell's and Krauthammer that are even read.

Not that the others do not present me with something to think about, but time constraints dictate.

Without including myself in this I can say that the piece above and the comments and commentators today are the best.

Great job all.

Now let’s continue to educate and take back the Republic. Even one more day with the Marxist in “Our” House is too many.

To all of you defending pensions for whatever branch or government job, I have one simple question. Are you aware that we are broke?

JJ and others,

Yes: we know we're broke, but it's not because we blew all that money on the military (which is one of the VERY few functions government may legitimately spend money on).

If we want to have a discussion about cutting military costs: fine, let's do it, but let's do away with ideas that will cost more than the current system, and let's not be liberals who don't understand cause-and-effect.

I did napkin math rather than spend hours on research, so my numbers will be close (although not perfect), but unless you want to royally screw people who put their butts on the line for decades, the increase in everyone's pay would cost far more than anything you'd save in order to avoid paying pensions to the 7%-10% of people who get military retirements historically. That is Burt's idea, and it is a non-starter economically. I like Burt, but this is completely counter-productive if the goal is to save money.

But if we increase pay so that it's even revenue-neutral we'll disincentivize a long military career so much that we will lose most of the guys who would otherwise stay for a full career. That is a small group, but ALL the senior leadership comes from that group. Do we really want to eliminate a huge percentage of our most experienced people? Even if we save money in the short term (which we won't) the consequences are both dire and utterly predictable - a hollow force as the pool of candidates for top leadership shrinks even more than it does now. That will cost us more in both blood AND treasure in the long run.

Of course we can decide that the military should be much smaller, but that means the OPTEMPO has to be drastically reduced. That means a smattering of overseas bases rather than what we have now. It also means we cannot respond to contingencies rapidly - as we would require significant time to ramp up. We would lose much of our ability to shape geopolitics to our liking.

If I hadn't seen so many people on this board going nuts about Ron Paul being a dangerous isolationist I might take the arguments more seriously. If we tinker with military pay enough to make a real difference in the national budget we're all going to be isolationists. I assume everyone who is complaining about military pay and pensions will be voting for Ron Paul. If not, you didn't do the math.

Army Officer (Ret.)“But if we increase pay so that it's even revenue-neutral we'll disincentivize a long military career so much that we will lose most of the guys who would otherwise stay for a full career. That is a small group, but ALL the senior leadership comes from that group. Do we really want to eliminate a huge percentage of our most experienced people? Even if we save money in the short term (which we won't) the consequences are both dire and utterly predictable - a hollow force as the pool of candidates for top leadership shrinks even more than it does now. That will cost us more in both blood AND treasure in the long run” And will leave us with a hollow force – materiel and professional ability – unable to defend the country against even the weakest of our many enemies. If you tend to disbelieve this, just look at the shocking number of Navy commanding officers being deep-sixed (removed) for poor leadership or operational errors that even a dumb, boot ensign wouldn’t commit.

Added sentence after "enemies": Those individuals with the intelligence and innate leadership qualities to be able to rise high in the corporate world, will put family ahead of patriotism, and not even consider a military career.

W.T. Door,

I think we do a pretty good job of weeding out the total nincompoops before they get too high up, although there are some people in very senior leadership positions who may not belong there. The problem isn't pensions - historically only about 7% of military people stay at least 20 years and earn a retirement. It's about twice that right now due to the wars and the funding that goes with them, but I expect that we'll drop back to normal rates soon. If a retiree gets 40% of his lifetime pay after he retires, that means 7% of vets get 40% of their lifetime pay as deferred compensation, while 93% never get the deferred portion of their compensation at all.

Burt complains that, "it simply makes no sense that these men and women should be able to put in their 20 years and then, starting as young as 38 or 39, begin collecting monthly checks for the next 40 or 50 years." But this smacks more of envy than sound financial policy, since military pensions are usually half of base pay, and most people don't live long enough to collect for 40 years, much less 50. The math says that you'd have to increase base pay by 40% for everyone in order to avoid screwing over the people who retire. Increasing base pay by 40% for 100% of soldiers is a bad way to save 40% for 7% of them.

Since only a tiny fraction of the populace ever wears the uniform, a guy who completes even one hitch has carried more than his share of the load defending the nation. A guy who does two decades has VASTLY exceeded his fair share - and probably has the scars to prove it (even guys who don't get wounded in combat usually pay the price in terms of blown knees, stress fractures, chemical exposure, you name it). I know a lot of military retirees and I don't know ANY who haven't acquired some sort of damage.

Of those guys who go the distance (a small fraction of 1% of the population), we do it despite hardships and family separations no civilian goes through, including cops and firemen. Again, ALL senior military leadership comes from that cohort. If we lose the possibility of a nice pension a bunch of guys will have to choose between staying in or staying married. That happens A LOT already, even with the current pension system.

Since most of us are married, and would like to stay that way, 20 years is just too much to ask if there's nothing substantial waiting at the other end. That means that very few guys who would like to stay in long enough to reach senior leadership positions will be able to do so.

Disincentivizing military careers is a sure-fire way to gut our capability to project power. If we significantly reduce our ability to project power we will accomplish the same result that deliberate isolationism would accomplish: so if people don't want to create the conditions where isolationism is the only avenue available due to decreased capability, pinching the pipeline that produces our senior military leadership should not be even a remote consideration.

Me? I think we're stretched too thin and are trying to do too much. I'd like to see a smaller force that tends to our national interests rather than every sad story that shows up on CNN, but that force should be highly trained, equipped, and compensated.

Army Officer (Ret.)

Enjoyed and obviously concur in your detailed response. Not to hog the blog, but some brief thoughts occasioned by your remarks that subsequent readers may also find of interest. “weeding out” Case in point. Terrible error by multiple reporting seniors that Holy Hell Holly (Graf) rose to the rank of captain thru 2 ship commands before her behavior became just too egregious for even political correctness to accommodate. “staying in or staying married” Although not practical, it’s my firm contention that there should be no married men in the Navy. Being able to successfully manage career and a marriage is a talent that’s a rarity not a common virtue. The separations are too long, and too frequent. As the salty old chief growled to the young seaman who was considering marriage, “if the Navy wanted you to have a wife, they would have issued you one.” “we're stretched too thin and are trying to do too much” While still on ACDU (which wasn’t just yesterday), the oft repeated watchword way back then was to "do more with less" both regarding materiel needs, and duty assignments(6 month deployments inevitably stretched to 7 or more). It's still the same, and the coming DoD cuts, and no OPTEMPO changes, will worsen an already bad situation. The bottom line is it's not just retirement dollars at stake, but the perfect storm of negative factors (an unqualified CinC, PC emphasized over professional ability, and worsening materiel readiness) that puts our national survival in jeopardy.

W.T.,

Thanks for the kind words and deep thoughts.

I think about the attitude expressed by your salty old chief sometimes about servicemen not being married. A long time ago I taught OCS and I tried to get my students to think long and hard about what they were signing up for as military leaders.

As you know from your Navy experience, the military is an incredibly complicated machine that requires high levels of competency in difficult, dangerous tasks. (Parenthetically - I always laugh as people, usually liberals and children, who think the military is made up of people who can't make it in the civilian job market. As if the 20-something kid with an Art History degree working at Blockbuster could do what I was doing at his age, much less what I did as a Lieutenant Colonel before I retired.)

As you noted, one of the things to consider is the balance between family and military service. With the complex nature of modern equipment and modern warfare a person has to spend many years mastering his craft, and more than two decades to become qualified to lead at the top levels. Telling those guys when they start their service around age 20 that they cannot marry means that only a tiny percentage of them will stick around long enough to climb the ranks.

The only option is to have a draft - of young women - whose service would consist of marrying military retirees at the end of their service so those guys can have the families they were denied while they defended the nation from ages 20 to 40 (or 50+ for senior leaders).

Somehow I don't see that happening. ;-)

Also, you're right about the toll political correctness has taken on the military. Now that I'm out I can say this: women do not belong in the military. Sure, there are a few good ones, and the best among them are better than the worst men, but the cost in duplicative facilities, pregnancies to avoid deployment, lower strength and stamina that prevent cupcake from just doing her regular job, barracks bed-hopping and outright prostitution, drastically lower physical standards, favoritism, fraternization, you name it, just isn't worth it. With the exception of a few positions on Civil Affairs Teams (which could be filled by State Department women), there is nothing the military does that cannot be done by men at a fraction of the cost we pay by having 10% of the force female.

But we try SOOOOO hard to be politically correct that we let women in uniform get away with performance that would result in a guy getting cashiered very early (like Holly Graf and Kara Hultgren should have been). Only when they cause an unmitigated disaster with death and destruction do we act on it. In order to appear non-sexist we promote women far beyond their abilities and lead them to believe they belong in those positions because of a fair assessment of their merits rather than their genitalia.

Having said that, I know some very smart, very patriotic, and very capable women in uniform, and some of them are good at their jobs as instructors or administrators, but I don't know many (or maybe any) who could carry my gear for 12 miles through the mountains in the snow like I did.

Army Officer (Ret.) “deep thoughts” Now there’s a sneaky pun if ever I saw one. You keep making points I would like to respond to, but we’re on Burt’s time, and his patience may be wearing thin. If you should choose to continue, my e-mail is shipmate@cableone.net Final comment: “carry my gear for 12 miles through the mountains in the snow” Ah, but you see, the PC bean counter desk jockeys have the perfect solution, they direct for women who after all are man’s equal, that the load be lightened, and distance shortened with as many rest stops as desired. That kind of “combat” force would never have gotten off the beach at Iwo Jima, or held Bastogne.

Burt, great column as always. As a 28year vet in the military (reserve), with four involuntary callups (two to Iraq), I can say i whole heartedly concur with your assessment on military and government pensions. The Reserve members have to wait until age 60 to draw their retirement and their retirement is a fraction of that of active duty counterparts (pro-rated for actual servcie time). I believe active duty pensions should start at age 60 like mine. I bleed the same, and I have to bear the added hardship of leaving and returning to my job while maintaining a positive relationship with my employer who is stretched thin to cover my absence every other year.

I concur with your other points as well. I would like to invite all readers to do their part to help restore your pride! ;-) Elect a conservative who will reign in government spending and start our debt clock spinning in reverse.

Rod