Senate Bill 644 proposes to reduce the age of Reserve Retirement receipt by 90 days for every 90 days served on Active Duty since 9/11. This bill, in one form or another, has been proposed every year for the past 8 years and until last year failed. Last year, the bill was made law but with an effective date of 28 Jan 08 instead of 9/11. This year, the House believes it will be unable to include this change into law because of the $550 million cost. Given the $3 trillion transferred to bankers and car companies, I strongly recommend that you contact your Senator and Congressman to indicate your disgust about how easily our government can transfer huge amounts of money to Executives who have failed in their chosen profession while dishonoring the sacrifice of our Reserve and National Guard service members during the past 8 years.
Originally posted by 1SGHicksD: What change are you talking about? The change making it retro-active to 9/11 or the actual bill that passed 28 Jan 2008?
The bill isn't retroactive. They are trying to make it so.
Any active duty performed between 9/11 and 28 Jan 08 doesn't count. The bill wouldn't pass with the retroactive date so they settled for the halfass version hoping to get it right later.
I have almost 4 years of mob's in support of 9/11 before Jan 08 (and have been on active since Jan 08 non-stop in Iraq and Afghanistan). I've been watching this very closely.
I think it should be retroactive to Aug 1990 so Desert Shield/Storm vets can be included. Actually, now that I think about it, that wouldn't be fair to all the WWI, WWII, and Korean War vets. Maybe it should go back to 1917...
Bill would make it retroactive to 9/11. There has been more than 660,000 reservists mobilized since then and there are more than 50,000 currentyl serving on Active Duty (to relieve the stress on the AC). For most, it will lower the retirement age to 58 or 59. for others like me, who continue to get tapped or told my civilian skills are in high demand, it means a retirement at 53. Although I understand the argument for retroactive to 1990, Desert Storm was 20 years ago and the war lasted 100 days. 1917 doesn't work because we didn't have a retirement plan until 1948. So, 9/11 is more realistic and might let many of us cut the string with the military and return to another career altogether.
While I would love the amended bill to pass (I would get my money at 56) I really doubt that it will pass with the economy in the shape it is in. It would have a much better chance of passing if we were going through better economical times.
Because the Reserve pension is such a great money saver, maybe we could provide it to everyone in uniform. Once members of the Active Component serve their 20 years, they can struggle to earn a living, pay rent, and stay employed with a company that routinely cuts wages instead of providing an annual pay raise. Then, after waiting 20 years (or more)when they are 60, if they live that long, they can draw their pension. It would still be the same amount of money for serving 20 years on active duty instead of the appropriate lesser amount paid to RC members for fewer years on active duty but you would have to wait to collect. Does that still sound fair?
quote:
Originally posted by palmfish: How many Reservists were mobilized in Sep 2001?
I think it should be retroactive to Aug 1990 so Desert Shield/Storm vets can be included. Actually, now that I think about it, that wouldn't be fair to all the WWI, WWII, and Korean War vets. Maybe it should go back to 1917...
I think Congress and other 'nay' sayers are looking at the worst. i.e. most expensive, case scenario. It's not like like every swinging Richard that was mobilized will cash in immediately. Of those mobilized, subtract the number that don't make it to retirement eligibility. Then subtract those that that don't live long enough to collect. For most of whats left, it'll only reduce the eligibility age only by the 90 day increments mobilized, which for the vast majority would make it 59 or 58. Sure there are some that have served multiple tours and could reduce their collection age to 50 or so, but in the big picture those are comparatively few. Include Desert Storm? Sure. Again big picture, how many units were mobed for more than 6 months? Letting those Joes collect his earned retirement 6 months earlier won't make that much of a difference for Uncle Sam, but a vet looking at Social Security becoming less and less and pension funds having taken hits recently (and probably will again in the future), that can really man a lot. hell, make it retro back to 1948. Again, big picture - how many vets would that effect in terms of having been mobilized between 1948 and 9/11 that actually made it to collecting their reserve pension? Congress complaining about cost after handing out a Trillion to Wall Street is laughable.
