To me, if this is going to be fair it should only apply to new recruits who haven't already signed on the bottom line.
Otherwise it breaks a promise to all the service men and women who have put considerable time in.
I don't know the details and have no real knowledge of military retirement, but in general the big wigs don't change things to do you any favors. I hope I'm wrong on that one but good luck.
And than you for your service.
I'd say that it should apply to anyone on their first enlistment, with an addendum that troops who are further along can opt in. The plus side of this is that it belongs to the Soldier, so that if something happens and he separates early, but under honorable conditions, then the money is his/hers. However, I'd add that those who separate under dishonorable conditions (Nidal Hasan comes to mind) should forfeit the accounts.
Originally Posted by txradioguy
The only thing I'd add to this is that if they're going to do it to us...make the same retirement plan apply to the civilians as well.
That's why they are doing it. The civilian pension plans are being looked at because they are completely unsustainable, and the justification for a 20-year retirement for some GS type who isn't physically worn out by the job was never there in the first place. But, the left is assuming that if they impose the same deal on the armed forces, that the people insisting on reform will back down.
That was my dad's sentiment as well. He was pissed when he heard about this. He spent 5 years as a Recruitor, and this just nullifies what he ended up promising everyone of the people he recruited.
And he's absolutely right. But, he's not the one who made the promise. Our civilian leaders are. He simply communicated it in good faith. He has a right to be pissed, but it doesn't reflect on his honor.