On 12/19/2013 11:50 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
In article ,
Daring Dufas : Hypocrite gay TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). The deal increases disc=
retionary domestic spending to over $1 trillion a year, by eliminating most=
the the sequester cuts. The deal pays for the spending hike through increa=
sed user fees and spending cuts, half of which occur a decade from now. One=
of the near-term spending cuts, however, is to reduce pension benefits for=
current veterans and active-duty military.

The Ryan-Murray budget deal hikes federal spending by $65 billion over the =
next two years. This spending is "paid for" by an increase in user fees, bu=
dget cuts in 2022 and 2023 and small reductions in current spending. One of=
these reductions is in pension benefits to veterans younger than 62. The b=
udget deal would reduce the yearly cost-of-living adjustments for these mil=
itary veterans. It would even impact those veterans who were forced to reti=
re due to injuries sustained in the service of our country. As my colleague=
Matt Boyle reported,House GOP leaders knew that the pension changes would =
impact vets.

Although I think it's a crappy thing for the government to do, I don't
see how "veterans younger than 62" can be considered "old", especially
in this newsgroup.

If I were Tyrant of the United States, I'd see to it that serving
military personnel and veterans were generously rewarded for their
service.

Cindy Hamilton

Not only is it a crappy thing to do but several studies conducted in the
late 1970's concluded that military retirees bodies were chronologically
advanced by 12-15 years over their peers who did not serve within the
military. Methinks that one of the requirements for being allowed to
run for a government office is a valid DD-214 showing honorable active
service in the US military.