Tag: US congress

Just two months ago, the US Congress voted to decrease cost-of-living-adjustments for 750,000 military pensioners in an effort to save $6.3 billion over 10 years and curb ballooning military benefit expenses.

But today, lawmakers reversed course: The US Senate voted overwhelmingly to repeal the cuts, and that vote came on the heels of a similarly one-sided vote that took place in the House yesterday.

The reversal came about as a result of various political realities; many military veterans and the groups that represent them expressed outrage at the initial pension cuts, and lawmakers facing mid-term elections were sensitive to the protests. Pension cuts, especially pertaining to military personnel, are a tumultuous political undertaking regardless of upcoming elections.

But some lawmakers expressed their discontent with reversing one of the few spending cuts that have made it past Congress in recent years. Reuters reports:

Conservative Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona said it was untrue that lawmakers were “turning our backs on veterans” with the cuts. He warned that the U.S. fiscal situation would only get worse if lawmakers “roll back one of the few deficit reduction measures our president and Congress have agreed to.”

“For goodness sake, when deficit reduction measures get signed into law, surely at some point we need to stand by them,” Flake said on the Senate floor. He was one of the three senators to vote against the repeal, along with Indiana Republican Dan Coats and Delaware Democrat Tom Carper.

Had the pension cuts not been repealed, military personnel under the age of 62 would have seen the COLAs on their pensions decrease by 1% below the rate of inflation.

Reducing pension benefits is a political minefield, and that sentiment applies two-fold when the benefits in question are for military personnel.

But no one sent that memo to House Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) or Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who last month passed a bi-partisan budget that cuts the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) of military pensions by 1%.

The move caused anger among veterans, but was supported by national security insiders, according to a poll conducted by the National Journal, a magazine widely read by Washington insiders.

According to the poll, 52% of insiders support the COLA decrease and 38% think the cutbacks should have been deeper.

Only 10% of insiders think military benefits should be off-limits entirely.

The Washington Post explains the rationale for cutting military pensions:

Overall, military compensation — including health benefits and salaries paid to active-duty personnel — eats up roughly half the defense budget, a proportion that is steadily rising. In a speech in November, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned that “without serious attempts to achieve significant savings” in military compensation, “we risk becoming an unbalanced force.”

Military pensions would appear to be particularly ripe for reduction. Anyone who puts in 20 years can receive payments immediately and look forward to annual cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, for life. That means service members who signed up at 18 could find themselves with a full pension — roughly half their ­active-duty paycheck — at 38. And the government finds itself doling out cash to former troops who have launched lucrative second careers, often with defense contractors that draw their profits from government coffers.

A 1% decrease in COLAs may not sound like much, but the decrease is projected to save the federal government $6 billion over the next 10 years.

Click here to read a summary of the budget deal.