Inside the Corporate Plan to Occupy the Pentagon Behind the growing push to slash soldiers' pensions and other military costs is a little-known advisory group—stacked with Wall Street executives.
With time fast running out for the so-called deficit supercommittee, the mammoth amount of government money spent on the military has become a prime target in Washington. But the main focus isn't on big-ticket weapons projects or expensive wars—it's on retirement benefits for the roughly 17 percent of soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen who have served 20 years or more in uniform. Currently the total cost of their benefits is about $50 billion a year.
Cuts to military pensions are "the kind of thing you have to consider," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in September. When President Obama unveiled his $3 trillion debt-reduction plan the same month, it called GIs' benefits "out of line" with private employee retirement plans, saying the system was "designed for a different era of work." When Congress held a hearing on military retirements in October, Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) promoted a cheaper 401(k)-style plan that would slash existing benefits for many troops. "I see nothing wrong with them being able to choose a different retirement plan," he said.
These ideas may sound like a bold new approach in an urgent moment—but in fact, the push for pension cuts and other corporate "reforms" at the Pentagon originates from an obscure advisory panel that has existed for a decade: The Defense Business Board. Its 21 members know little about military affairs, but they are rich in Wall Street experience, including with some of the biggest companies implicated in the 2008 financial meltdown. They are investment bank CEOs and CFOs, outsourcing experts, and layoff specialists who promote a corporate agenda of "behavior change" and "business solutions" in the military bureaucracy. The board proposes not only to slash and privatize military pensions, but also to have the Pentagon invest in oil futures, boost pay for its executives and political appointees, and make it easier for them to fire rank-and-file employees while scaling back those workers' collective bargaining rights.
And this from Mother Jones who advocates cutting the military budget by 50%. How many veterans would find their jobs eliminated way before they got their 20 years in?
Pot calling kettle black?
Veterans already have double the unemployment rate of Americans and Obama, Panetta, and Mother Jones wants to put even more out of work.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
No, this from THE DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD, which I gave you a direct link to. I don't give a flip if you don't like Mother Jones spin on the story... It doesn't change the truth of the story, does it....
It wasn't "Mother Jones" that is talking about putting veterans out of work, or cutting their benefits... It's THE DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD... Are you really that dense?
Actually I posted weeks ago about how the military is looking at revamping their current pension system and what would be more fair, a 401K system where you are vested right away compared to the current where if you get forced out in 19 years instead of 20, you receive nothing. Which is more fair?
You are the one who had to blame those evil Wall Street types.
Which system would you prefer at your workplace? 20 years before you get any defined retirement benefits, or market based benefits, but all employees get to partake?
Doesn't sound so evil this way does it?
Where's the outrage?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
What does the civil workplace have to do with the Military?... That's quite a stretch there, Sparky. And considering the so-called "free market" Wall Street criminals managed to reduce the value of my 401k by 60% over the last 10 years, I think I'd take my chances with a defined benefit that the crooks can't play with.
Civil versus goverment? Even federal employees are seeing their benefits changed from a defined system to a 401k style.
I asked the Vets here in my thread about it and they were divided about the change, bot no one was blaming Wall Street for implementing it. LJ, the communist McCarthy? Seeing a capitalist pig behind every tree?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: Civil versus goverment? Even federal employees are seeing their benefits changed from a defined system to a 401k style.
I asked the Vets here in my thread about it and they were divided about the change, bot[sic] no one was blaming Wall Street for implementing it. LJ, the communist McCarthy? Seeing a capitalist pig behind every tree?
The article speaks for itself... I merely quoted it:
Its 21 members know little about military affairs, but they are rich in Wall Street experience, including with some of the biggest companies implicated in the 2008 financial meltdown
. They are investment bank CEOs and CFOs, outsourcing experts, and layoff specialists who promote a corporate agenda of "behavior change" and "business solutions" in the military bureaucracy. The board proposes not only to slash and privatize military pensions, but also to have the Pentagon invest in oil futures, boost pay for its executives and political appointees, and make it easier for them to fire rank-and-file employees while scaling back those workers' collective bargaining rights.
Was there some part of that you didn't understand?
