PDA

View Full Version : Tuition Assistance suspended...medical benefits next?



Drackore
03-12-2013, 08:04 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers

My problem with this article, though...it say active duty medical will go up. Go up from what? I haven't spent a dime on healthcare or pharmaceuticals since I joined.

Anyways...I don't put much faith in The Examiner or The Free Republic sites, but I googled it and saw this same story was posted a lot to other small time news sites.

Pullinteeth
03-12-2013, 08:14 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers

My problem with this article, though...it say active duty medical will go up. Go up from what? I haven't spent a dime on healthcare or pharmaceuticals since I joined.

Anyways...I don't put much faith in The Examiner or The Free Republic sites, but I googled it and saw this same story was posted a lot to other small time news sites.

It was picked up by Fox...haven't seen it on any of the liberal rags yet...

http://nation.foxnews.com/obama/2013/01/26/obama-cut-healthcare-benefits-military

Originally posted by Wash Free Beacon.

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

tiredretiredE7
03-12-2013, 08:43 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers

My problem with this article, though...it say active duty medical will go up. Go up from what? I haven't spent a dime on healthcare or pharmaceuticals since I joined.

Anyways...I don't put much faith in The Examiner or The Free Republic sites, but I googled it and saw this same story was posted a lot to other small time news sites.

You forgot to add retirement benefit to your title. They are aiming to cut the military retirement program as well. How deep? Who knows. All I know is a majority of 30 and under military voted for Obama twice so I guess these cuts are what they wanted.

Elections have consequences.

FLAPS
03-12-2013, 09:14 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers

My problem with this article, though...it say active duty medical will go up. Go up from what? I haven't spent a dime on healthcare or pharmaceuticals since I joined.

Anyways...I don't put much faith in The Examiner or The Free Republic sites, but I googled it and saw this same story was posted a lot to other small time news sites.

That article is from Feb 2012

MACHINE666
03-12-2013, 09:28 PM
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/final-approval-expected-for-bill-allowing-lower-tuition-for-colorado-illegal-immigrant-students

I'm done at this point. Seriously.

RobotChicken
03-12-2013, 09:32 PM
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/final-approval-expected-for-bill-allowing-lower-tuition-for-colorado-illegal-immigrant-students

I'm done at this point. Seriously.
Let them earn it the 'ole fashioned way', join the military!

CYBERFX1024
03-12-2013, 09:50 PM
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/final-approval-expected-for-bill-allowing-lower-tuition-for-colorado-illegal-immigrant-students

I'm done at this point. Seriously.

Exactly why I am not moving to Colorado and I am getting out of Cali asap

Banned
03-13-2013, 01:27 AM
Exactly why I am not moving to Colorado and I am getting out of Cali asap

You realize of course that Cali is one of the most veteran-friendly states in the Union, right?

grimreaper
03-13-2013, 03:13 AM
You realize of course that Cali is one of the most veteran-friendly states in the Union, right?

http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/retirement/T055-S001-state-by-state-guide-to-taxes-on-retirees/index.php?map=&map=&state_id=5&state=California

grimreaper
03-13-2013, 03:14 AM
You realize of course that Cali is one of the most veteran-friendly states in the Union, right?

What are you basing that on?

http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/retirement/T055-S001-state-by-state-guide-to-taxes-on-retirees/index.php?map=&map=&state_id=5&state=California

cloudFFVII
03-13-2013, 03:42 AM
If TRICARE ends up being changed for AD, trust me when I say TA will be a pebble and that would be the perpetual meteor streaking from the heavens and smashing into the Atlantic Ocean.

Banned
03-13-2013, 03:55 AM
What are you basing that on?

http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/retirement/T055-S001-state-by-state-guide-to-taxes-on-retirees/index.php?map=&map=&state_id=5&state=California

Great question, I'm glad you asked.

Where to start where to start... now of course California is by no means unique in most, perhaps all, of these categories - but we've got a great combination. From what I understand Texas is also real generous with the vets.

-Waived tuition fees at state college for your children if you rate a 0% disability or higher.
-Excellent state TA program if you choose to reenlist as Guard (which was unaffected by the Federal TA being cut, incidentally)
-Hiring preferences for state jobs
-A laundry list of "perks" -waved fees, license plates, fishing licenses, etc.
-State jobs offer 30 days of military leave in addition to your normal vacation and sick leave. So basically if you have drill, you're literally getting two pay checks.
-A bunch of other stuff about loans and what-have-you.

Found a link here - I didn't read it, might list other stuff I didn't:

http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/State__Territory_Benefits/California.html

RobotChicken
03-13-2013, 04:19 AM
I think everyone that 'voted for change' were draft dodgin' (non-vol types) suckin' on the public trough....just my opinion of course,read at own risk,not to be held responsible for going 'postal' over comment. RC.:fear

grimreaper
03-13-2013, 04:40 AM
Great question, I'm glad you asked.

Where to start where to start... now of course California is by no means unique in most, perhaps all, of these categories - but we've got a great combination. From what I understand Texas is also real generous with the vets.

-Waived tuition fees at state college for your children if you rate a 0% disability or higher.
-Excellent state TA program if you choose to reenlist as Guard (which was unaffected by the Federal TA being cut, incidentally)
-Hiring preferences for state jobs
-A laundry list of "perks" -waved fees, license plates, fishing licenses, etc.
-State jobs offer 30 days of military leave in addition to your normal vacation and sick leave. So basically if you have drill, you're literally getting two pay checks.
-A bunch of other stuff about loans and what-have-you.

Found a link here - I didn't read it, might list other stuff I didn't:

http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/State__Territory_Benefits/California.html

Not bad, but what about after retiring? They tax your retirement, which is a deal-breaker for many right there.

CrustySMSgt
03-13-2013, 05:30 AM
That story has been making its rounds on FB as well... and as was already pointed out, was more pre-election doom crying.

Not saying we don't "earn" retirement, and are more deserving than those who free-load and do nothing and get paid, BUT, I do find it ironic that those who complain about rampant spending and entitlements, yet are the first to defend an unsustainable military "retirement" system. There is no doubt our retirement will change; it has to... as people live longer, the cost is eating up more and more of the budget. If you do 20 years, you'll get a check for the next 50+ years. Doesn't take an economics major to see that hole getting deeper and deeper as life expectancy increases. No doubt any change will affect retention in the short term, but just like any other change, once it is the norm, it will be accepted. I guess if it gets too bad, we can always feed the lower end of the manning pool by bringing back the draft; there will always be those who'll stick it out and re-up. Don't get me wrong, I am all for defending what we earn and calling for reforms on what those who aren't "earning" anything... but I am also a realist.

Banned
03-13-2013, 06:36 AM
Not bad, but what about after retiring? They tax your retirement, which is a deal-breaker for many right there.

Yes - balances out though. All that shit needs to get paid for somehow.

CJSmith
03-13-2013, 07:10 AM
I'm all for the bennies. I joined before 9/11 so some of those weren't available then, they came about because of recruiting tools. However, I know they are just that, bennies - easily taken away at any time. When I joined, my pops (retired 6 months before I joined) told me nothing is guranteed. You signed a dotted line to serve and protect your country, everything else is just a promise - it's not contractual. (Where in anyone's contract does it say you WILL get TA?)

I remember several years ago leaders saying that TA might not be here for much longer. Every cc call said the same thing, get your TA in now cause it may not be here in the future. Not everyone is in a position to do this, but I busted my ass to get school done cause I knew that shit would get pulled sooner or later. Same reason why I save money and invest TODAY, instead of relying on a retirement paycheck. There is no gurantee it will be there so I plan.

I have no idea what point I'm trying to make. I just get pissed at hearing people bitch about something but never took advantage of it or prepped for it. And Crusty nailed it a few posts prior!

giggawatt
03-13-2013, 07:22 AM
Would anyone object to extending the service commitment in order to be eligible for retirement? I'm talking at least 25-30 years. IDK, maybe to get more bang for your buck.

CJSmith
03-13-2013, 07:58 AM
Would anyone object to extending the service commitment in order to be eligible for retirement? I'm talking at least 25-30 years. IDK, maybe to get more bang for your buck.

I thought the same thing. A large majority of us work after military retirement, hell some even just transfer the job into a civilian job. Why not just move the retirement up? Oh man, that's going to ruffle some feathers on here!

Drackore
03-13-2013, 08:03 AM
I say if people work after retirement, then the retirement gets put on hold if the sum of the retirement and the new salary is greater than what they were making pre-retirement.

Watch how many Generals flip out over that.

CrustySMSgt
03-13-2013, 08:30 AM
I say if people work after retirement, then the retirement gets put on hold if the sum of the retirement and the new salary is greater than what they were making pre-retirement.

Watch how many Generals flip out over that.

That would make no sense, not to mention a beaurocratic nightmare to regulate. If two individuals retire at the same grade/TIS and one spent his whole career saving and didn't work when they retired, they'd be getting paid, while the one who lived paycheck to paycheck and was forced to continue working wouldn't.


I thought the same thing. A large majority of us work after military retirement, hell some even just transfer the job into a civilian job. Why not just move the retirement up? Oh man, that's going to ruffle some feathers on here!

The problem with moving it up is stagnation. We've already got too much dead weight hanging out to the current HYTs; if you made people hanging out longer, you'd have more folks going road and doing the minimum required to not get booted out while not pulling their weight. Would leave those busting their ass doing the work of their worthless supervision with little incentive to stick it out that long; they aren't going to get promoted until the dead weight leaves, so not only are they having to work harder, they aren't getting paid for it.

I suspect given we've tried one iteration of pushing retirement benefit payment out to "retirement age", that'll come around again. If that was the case, I'd hope it ended up being a system with options. For those looking to fully retire after their service there'd be one option for investing your cut into something accesable at the end of your service and for those who plan on starting a second career, something more long-term that they can draw on later.

Drackore
03-13-2013, 08:55 AM
Yea it was a sarcastic joke that even I can't stand looking at. I am 100% against touching the retirement system. It needs to stay as is.

What needs to change is the constant cutting from the bottom. We are too top heavy and they are too bloated and fat. Keep cutting the bottom and it all comes crumbling down.

Monkey
03-13-2013, 09:19 AM
That would make no sense

Since when does that matter?


We've already got too much dead weight hanging out to the current HYTs

Be careful with statements like that. It makes you sound like an eliltist. Some people need a little more time than others (you) to make rank. To think that everyone who doesn't match your ability is "dead weight" is a bit narrow minded. You are not the standard.

I'm not disagreeing with you on anything, I'm just feeling a bit snipey today.

PickYourBattles
03-13-2013, 09:37 AM
Would anyone object to extending the service commitment in order to be eligible for retirement? I'm talking at least 25-30 years. IDK, maybe to get more bang for your buck.

Yeah I'd object. Furiously.

FLAPS
03-13-2013, 10:16 AM
Yes - balances out though. All that shit needs to get paid for somehow.

All of that "entitlement" shit is right. California is broke, and the worse their financial situation gets, the more they want to raise taxes (on the makers, not takers). The more they raise taxes, the more people who want to leave. There is no "balance" in CA. The best place for any vet to settle down is an area with an overall lower cost of living. CA isn't on that list.

FLAPS
03-13-2013, 10:21 AM
Would anyone object to extending the service commitment in order to be eligible for retirement? I'm talking at least 25-30 years. IDK, maybe to get more bang for your buck.

Unless your plan is to retire for good, the best time (in my opinion) to start a new career is early-mid 40s, at the latest. The older you get, the less marketable you are to most companies (i.e., health, pay demands, etc).

CrustySMSgt
03-13-2013, 10:34 AM
Since when does that matter?

Be careful with statements like that. It makes you sound like an eliltist. Some people need a little more time than others (you) to make rank. To think that everyone who doesn't match your ability is "dead weight" is a bit narrow minded. You are not the standard.

I'm not disagreeing with you on anything, I'm just feeling a bit snipey today.

Good point... lol

Certainly not intended to be an elitist statement. Just an observation on the results on a career of dealing with the products of our overinflated EPR system which rewards mediocrity and pushes people beyond their capabilities. Not only do some people need more time to make rank, someone people SHOULDN'T (and aren't capable of) making rank. Not everyone should be a SSgt/TSgt/MSgt/SMSgt/CMSgt. As it stands now, you can be average on a good day and still have a pretty good shot at making MSgt. I can't begin to count the number of ROAD MSgts I've encountered, both as a troop and a supervisor; they are content with remaining a worker bee, letting their NCOs do the heavy lifting, as long as they're collecting that MSgt pay. They know A) unless they go to jail, there is a good chance they're gonna get 5 EPRs and B ) if they go to jail, as long as it wasn't for killing someone, they'll probably only get as low as a referral 3... which means they can hang out and collect MSgt pay through 24 years and not have to earn it.

We need good TSgt/MSgts. If someone makes it that far and peaks, as long as they are performing at that level, I've got no problem with them. It is those that continue to get promoted over their head and fail to perform at that level, knowing there will be zero accountability.

Chief_KO
03-13-2013, 12:18 PM
Since we've strayed into retirement benefits...perhaps it is time to replace our current system with a 401K style. Eliminate (by grandfathering) the current system requiring 20 years (2.5% x #years). We have two plans currently in use the High 3 and REDUX. Both require someone to serve at least 20 years (typically). How many of us heard (or said) that once you hit 10 years, you're better off to stay till 20. How many ROAD NCOs/SNCOs does this create?
While the concept of changing retirement will cause uproar (mostly from the ol'timers who would not be affected), it might be high time to provide a system for those that serve less than 20 years to have a retirement fund. Yes, it would be weighted to encourage longer service (DoD matching $ increasing as more time is served), yes for those serving less than 20 the $ would not be available till age 65 or so. But, would it not be a better, fairer, more inclusive system for all?

Drackore
03-13-2013, 12:28 PM
Like putting it in the TSP, as was suggested a few years ago (and while TSP was crashing into the ground)?

This current system is guaranteed money. I put into TSP, but it gives me heart attacks everytime I see on Fox news that some rebellion broke out in the Middle East and oil prices went soaring or that some idiot politician said the economy is going to crash next week. Anytime something happens in the news, my TSP takes a nosedive.

No thanks.

CrustySMSgt
03-13-2013, 12:36 PM
I am 100% against touching the retirement system. It needs to stay as is.

I'm 100% certain it will change in the very near future. No idea what it'll be, but no doubt it'll be something significantly as appealing as what we currently have. Also no bets on where they'll draw the line on grandfathering. I'd like to think it'd be a line int eh sand and if you were in before x date, you're on the old system, but it wouldn't surprise me to see something like any career Airman (not first-termer), where they justify it as an out so anyone who isn't looking to do the full ride to punch while making an attempt to do right by anyone who's re-upped at least once.

Pullinteeth
03-13-2013, 12:45 PM
You forgot to add retirement benefit to your title. They are aiming to cut the military retirement program as well. How deep? Who knows. All I know is a majority of 30 and under military voted for Obama twice so I guess these cuts are what they wanted.

Elections have consequences.

Never fear...some Airman at the gym said they wouldn't touch MY retirement...


You realize of course that Cali is one of the most veteran-friendly states in the Union, right?

You put me in an awfully uncomfortable situation here Joe....I agree with you. One of the most would only put 'em in the top 24 or so but I would say Cali is in the top 5. I am not positive though but I think SOME of their state bennies depend on if you are a Cali native or not though....



-Waived tuition fees at state college for your children if you rate a 0% disability or higher.

Ummm wouldn't that be EVERYONE?

Sergeant eNYgma
03-13-2013, 01:35 PM
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/final-approval-expected-for-bill-allowing-lower-tuition-for-colorado-illegal-immigrant-students

I'm done at this point. Seriously.

You and me both...the fuck is that?

TSgt"M"
03-13-2013, 02:37 PM
You and me both...the fuck is that?

What the hell are they smoking.............wait that's leagal there now. Even the publicans have gone lib.

sandsjames
03-13-2013, 04:19 PM
Ummm wouldn't that be EVERYONE?


No. Two different things. A 0% disability rating is different than NO disability rating. Stupid, I know. It doesn't take much to get the 0%. It's pretty much a way of saying "I've got some issues that don't effect me now but could in the future".

tiredretiredE7
03-13-2013, 05:03 PM
You realize of course that Cali is one of the most veteran-friendly states in the Union, right?

Have you seen how WillPowers has been treated in California? Oh, wait he DESERVED it.

Banned
03-13-2013, 05:33 PM
You put me in an awfully uncomfortable situation here Joe....I agree with you. One of the most would only put 'em in the top 24 or so but I would say Cali is in the top 5. I am not positive though but I think SOME of their state bennies depend on if you are a Cali native or not though....

Don't quote me on this one... but (from memory), I'm pretty sure they're all dependent on residency. So it doesn't matter where you came in from, provided you live and pay taxes here.

The Guard TA program does however have a time of service requirement of 2 years.


Ummm wouldn't that be EVERYONE?

Not exactly - "0%" is still a valid disability rating for a valid medical condition caused by military service, you just aren't getting any payments for it. For example, if you busted your leg on a field op ten years ago, now you get your medical record looked at by the VHA - they determine that your leg isn't currently causing you problems, but probably will in the future as you get older... so they give you a "0%" - which can be changed later if your leg gets worse.

The "0%" is more common for the younger guys who got out after 4 or 8 years.

Banned
03-13-2013, 05:34 PM
Have you seen how WillPowers has been treated in California? Oh, wait he DESERVED it.

I was actually a little embarassed that he lives in the same county as me!

SomeRandomGuy
03-13-2013, 05:36 PM
I was actually a little embarassed that he lives in the same country as me!

There I fixed that for you.

Drackore
03-13-2013, 07:15 PM
You live near Dick?!?! Dude...you gotta go say hi for me! :D

grimreaper
03-13-2013, 07:53 PM
Would anyone object to extending the service commitment in order to be eligible for retirement? I'm talking at least 25-30 years. IDK, maybe to get more bang for your buck.

They already changed HYT so you can no longer stay until 20 as a SSgt. Heck, I say lower the HYT for a TSgt to under 20 as well. If you can't make MSgt in 20 years with the current promotion rates, there is something wrong.

Banned
03-16-2013, 07:16 AM
There I fixed that for you.

LOL!!!


You live near Dick?!?! Dude...you gotta go say hi for me! :D


I would, but - despite me being a ginger - I do have a bit of a tan right now, I wouldn't want him to confuse me for a minority, especially if he's in his car at the time.

efmbman
03-16-2013, 01:22 PM
First off, I agree that retirement benefits will exventually be cut severely. However, I don't think it will be retroactive to those already retired. The system is getting us fairly well already by gutting TRICARE Prime in "remote" areas. The definition of "remote" is very arbitrary by the way.

When I knew I was going to retire, I hit the research. Here is a list of states that do NOT tax military pensions on income tax:

Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

I decided to look at my retirement pay as fixed income (mainly because it is really all I can actually count on - anything else is gravy). Where can I live to make that retirement pay go the farthest?

I did manage to get into the GS system (yay!) so that is an added bonus. With the GS-11 pay, my retirement goes untouched each month.

I live in CT now because my wife is using my GI Bill to finish her Masters and I did not want to interrupt that. Also, I am from the South so I can say with a degree of experience that the farther South you go, the worse the public schools get. So we decided to suck it up here in CT until the kids had a good educational foundation (grade 3-4 for the youngest). That also works for my situation because by then I will be GS-11 Step 4, which makes for great portability for the federal career and I am with an agency that is nation-wide.

Like someone mentioned above, I also considered my age. I did not want to be in my high 40s and re-enter the job market. Vet preference or not, it makes it more difficult. I did it at 42.

I was lucky in many ways that it all fell in line in less than a year, but there were periods during which I was very nervous about the future. I would counsel anyone to start thinking about it at the 16 year mark.

My bulls-eye is set on either Tennessee or Kentucky. Both are very vet friendly, have federal jobs, have a lower cost of living and a lower tax burden. In my case, it puts me and my immediate family in reasonable visiting distance from my folks in Texas and my wifes folks in Ohio.

I don't want this to come across as bragging, because I am not. Just wanted to share my though process when I went through the transition in the hopes that I can get someone thinking about something they had not considered.

I would not object to extending retirement eligibility to 25 years - but that is just my opinion. I would have done 25 to retire. But I don't think such a change should apply to anyone serving now. I am not a fan of moving the goal posts once the game has started. Of course, since I already retired, that is a lot easier for me to say since it would not affect me at all.

imported_KnuckleDragger
03-16-2013, 02:05 PM
When I knew I was going to retire, I hit the research. Here is a list of states that do NOT tax military pensions on income tax:

Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.



Thanks for the good info.

Robert F. Dorr
03-16-2013, 02:16 PM
Two contradictory responses:

1. I wonder how much leadership understands of the role of tuition assistance in military life.

2. I wonder if military members see tuition assistance as something they're entitled to.

Drackore
03-16-2013, 02:56 PM
1. Leadership doesn't understand anything in military life anymore. Leadership (or lack thereof) is seriously too far removed from the everyday goings-on of the operational force to have any clue. As soon as an E9 gets that cushy functional job or MAJCOM or higher Command slot, they braindump everything. Same with Os. Once they leave the Wing level, they are useless to the boots on the ground folks. I will honestly bet that service level leadership was surprised at the amount of people complaining over TA in the branches that have suspended it. They were probably expecting a whispered roar, not the bloodcurdling screams.

2. It's America today - everything expects to be entitled to something. People acting like this is a breech of contract, etc. The GI Bill is an actual entitlement. TA was a perk. The perk is suspended, nothing more to be said. It's like taking away the Airman's Attic. It is what it is.


Two contradictory responses:

1. I wonder how much leadership understands of the role of tuition assistance in military life.

2. I wonder if military members see tuition assistance as something they're entitled to.

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
03-16-2013, 03:17 PM
First off, I agree that retirement benefits will exventually be cut severely. However, I don't think it will be retroactive to those already retired. The system is getting us fairly well already by gutting TRICARE Prime in "remote" areas. The definition of "remote" is very arbitrary by the way.

When I knew I was going to retire, I hit the research. Here is a list of states that do NOT tax military pensions on income tax:

Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

I decided to look at my retirement pay as fixed income (mainly because it is really all I can actually count on - anything else is gravy). Where can I live to make that retirement pay go the farthest?

I did manage to get into the GS system (yay!) so that is an added bonus. With the GS-11 pay, my retirement goes untouched each month.

I live in CT now because my wife is using my GI Bill to finish her Masters and I did not want to interrupt that. Also, I am from the South so I can say with a degree of experience that the farther South you go, the worse the public schools get. So we decided to suck it up here in CT until the kids had a good educational foundation (grade 3-4 for the youngest). That also works for my situation because by then I will be GS-11 Step 4, which makes for great portability for the federal career and I am with an agency that is nation-wide.

Like someone mentioned above, I also considered my age. I did not want to be in my high 40s and re-enter the job market. Vet preference or not, it makes it more difficult. I did it at 42.

I was lucky in many ways that it all fell in line in less than a year, but there were periods during which I was very nervous about the future. I would counsel anyone to start thinking about it at the 16 year mark.

My bulls-eye is set on either Tennessee or Kentucky. Both are very vet friendly, have federal jobs, have a lower cost of living and a lower tax burden. In my case, it puts me and my immediate family in reasonable visiting distance from my folks in Texas and my wifes folks in Ohio.

I don't want this to come across as bragging, because I am not. Just wanted to share my though process when I went through the transition in the hopes that I can get someone thinking about something they had not considered.

I would not object to extending retirement eligibility to 25 years - but that is just my opinion. I would have done 25 to retire. But I don't think such a change should apply to anyone serving now. I am not a fan of moving the goal posts once the game has started. Of course, since I already retired, that is a lot easier for me to say since it would not affect me at all.


I didn't take that as bragging at all. Thanks for sharing your thought process.

Robert F. Dorr
03-16-2013, 07:39 PM
1. Leadership doesn't understand anything in military life anymore. Leadership (or lack thereof) is seriously too far removed from the everyday goings-on of the operational force to have any clue. As soon as an E9 gets that cushy functional job or MAJCOM or higher Command slot, they braindump everything. Same with Os. Once they leave the Wing level, they are useless to the boots on the ground folks. I will honestly bet that service level leadership was surprised at the amount of people complaining over TA in the branches that have suspended it. They were probably expecting a whispered roar, not the bloodcurdling screams.

2. It's America today - everything expects to be entitled to something. People acting like this is a breech of contract, etc. The GI Bill is an actual entitlement. TA was a perk. The perk is suspended, nothing more to be said. It's like taking away the Airman's Attic. It is what it is.

I think you mean breach.

There are people in uniform today who wouldn't have raised their right hands had they not seen military service as a way to help with education. So is it a legitimate form of assistance as an incentive for military members? Or is it a bribe so that you, instead of my son or daughter, will get to go to the next Vietnam?

Greg
03-16-2013, 07:47 PM
I think you mean breach.

There are people in uniform today who wouldn't have raised their right hands had they not seen military service as a way to help with education. So is it a legitimate form of assistance as an incentive for military members? Or is it a bribe so that you, instead of my son or daughter, will get to go to the next Vietnam?

I'd say it depends on which side of the desk one is sitting, Bob.

efmbman
03-16-2013, 08:05 PM
I agree there are some that joined simply for the benefits. I do not fault them for that as long as they still meet their obligations.

I agree there are some that feel TA is an entitlement, but I disagree that the military is contractually obligated to continue TA. As stated above, it was a perk just like the auto skills center, AAFES, Space-A travel, etc. There are other ways to make college happen. I am not saying losing TA sucks, but it is gone (for now). Adjust and overcome.

Some leadership is out of touch, yes. I think Tak got it right by saying that once people stand when you enter a room it will go to your head.

Quixotic
03-16-2013, 08:22 PM
One of the things that has people (myself included) so angry about loosing TA is the way in which it was ended. There was no warning that said it was going to end on this date, get prepared. They didn't even scale it back gradually in a responsible manner, just BAM, GONE!

If TA genuinely needed to go (which is highly suspect) the way in which they yanked the TA carpet out from under many of us was reckless, irresponsible and inexcusable. What is most shameful about it is that I believe they did it on purpose, to make us howl in anger to our representatives and help force some budgetary action in Washington.

Cutting TA in this manner was a political move by senior leadership, not a budgetary necessity.

efmbman
03-16-2013, 09:43 PM
What is most shameful about it is that I believe they did it on purpose, to make us howl in anger to our representatives and help force some budgetary action in Washington.

Cutting TA in this manner was a political move by senior leadership, not a budgetary necessity.

I completely agree. It is posturing, nothing more. The sad part is that very few people will remember this (and all the other posturing) when the next election cycle comes around. Even though the sequestration possibility was public knowledge and written into the Budget Control Act, almost 80% that voted yes to that bill were re-elected. That's from both parties.

Drackore
03-17-2013, 12:52 PM
That is because the majority of American voters are lemmings. Idiots that follow a "party", right or wrong, til death do they part. They won't vote for the best candidate, just the one they associate to in a party mentality. They'll pick a far right Conservative nutjob over a moderate, center standing Democrat because the Conservative has that "(R)" next to their name. And after every election, my point that most Americans are stupid is continually proven.


I completely agree. It is posturing, nothing more. The sad part is that very few people will remember this (and all the other posturing) when the next election cycle comes around. Even though the sequestration possibility was public knowledge and written into the Budget Control Act, almost 80% that voted yes to that bill were re-elected. That's from both parties.

technomage1
03-17-2013, 01:15 PM
AFSA is making the slippery slope argument about TA right now. I find it hard to get worked up over the issue. When I came in it was not 100% TA. I want it say it was 50%, but it may have been 75%, I didn't use it then so I can't remember for sure. I do remember when it went to 100% because everyone made a big deal of it.

When I did use TA 2 years ago I was told up front it was not guaranteed, it was dependent on funding at the base level. So I guess I've never really looked on it as a "entitlement" as it were, unlike health care or housing, etc. it's kind of like the cherry on top,of the sundae. Really nice to have, but you've still got a sundae without it.

efmbman
03-17-2013, 01:25 PM
That is because the majority of American voters are lemmings. Idiots that follow a "party", right or wrong, til death do they part. They won't vote for the best candidate, just the one they associate to in a party mentality. They'll pick a far right Conservative nutjob over a moderate, center standing Democrat because the Conservative has that "(R)" next to their name. And after every election, my point that most Americans are stupid is continually proven.

I agree. Someone once told me that in this way: People would vote along party lines if it was Hitler (40%) vs Stalin (40%) and that's just the way it is. It is the floating 20% that actually decides elections, and that is what the candidates campaign for. Not sure if that is completely true, but it seems like it sometimes. There have been some really bad politicians re-elected.