Congress clears bill ending military pension cuts

[Tx4obama]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress voted Wednesday to restore full cost-of-living pension increases for younger military retirees, completing a bipartisan capitulation to veterans groups that rose up against a modest cut when it was enacted less than two months ago.

The Senate voted 95-3 for the measure, one day after the House approved it, 326-90. The White House said President Barack Obama would sign it.

The overwhelming support the bill enjoyed, including backing by many prominent deficit hawks, reflected the clout that veterans groups enjoy, particularly in an election year.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who opposed the cut when it was first passed, said the legislation restores the benefits "and protects the budget savings achieved by the latest budget deal."

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MILITARY_PENSIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-02-12-17-31-19

[MADem]

1. 2 Republicans and a Dem voted against it.

The only senators who voted against the bill were Democrat Thomas Carper of Delaware and Republicans Daniel Coats of Indiana and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/12/news/economy/military-pensions-senate/

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Interesting set of "No"s

I used to watch Flake for years when he was in the House and he always participated in the House floor budget/appropriations debates with a list in hand of what he considered "pork" in the particular bill being debated. He was rigidly consistent with doing this. Once he moved to the Senate, he started doing similar a little bit, but later was much much less vocal about calling out fiscal issues, ceding the floor instead to the teabagger clown show loons like Cruz.

Carper's vote makes no sense considering Dover (and the base that brings in the military dead) is there in Delaware and he himself, is a veteran. More info in an article here where they said that Coats didn't like how it was offset and there was no comment from Carper's office.

[MADem]

4. I am wondering if Flake is afraid of the Teahadists who are going after McCain for being "too

liberal." If he kowtows to them over this kind of a thing, he's a total wuss.

I'd love to see Flake challenged by a vet with a superb military record--that vote is a "Make hay" one in the right circumstances. Picture the ads, they write themselves....showing Arizonans, military vets, some with visible injuries, going about their lives, and making acerbic comments about how Fake Flake didn't support them when they needed it.

Flake is a real jerk--I really do hope he gets some blowback for this vote.

[fasttense]

3. Thanks for posting this but the AP is certainly writing slanted and biased reports

"Completing a bipartisan capitulation to veterans groups that rose up against a modest cut."

I bet if the uber rich were required to pay 1% more it wouldn't be a modest tax increase.

The rest of the article goes on to explain how we are all doomed because congress is NOT cutting and slashing all entitlement programs. Yet, not one word in the entire article about taxing the uber rich to make up for the deficit. Since the uber rich enjoy a lower tax rate on their wealth than the rest of us, you would have thought maybe paying the supposed deficit with some real money like what's in the hands of the 1% would have at lest been mentioned. But no, the article starts with the assumption that austerity for workers, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and luxury for the 1% (in oil, gas, and off shoring jobs subsidies) is the only way a government in a huge recession can deal.

Pay off the uber rich, who have already been bailed out once, who loaned the US the money (after the US treasury handed them the money) on the backs of those who put their lives on the line for their country. Yeah, that's the spirit. Uber Rich Over ALL

[MADem]

5. Fair point, and the fact that most of the Senate didn't see it as a "modest cut" is proof that it

wasn't.

The cut was to be one percent each year, up to age sixty two, IIRC--and then the benefits are restored. Over time, that adds up to a lotta scratch.

Given that many military retirees don't enter the workforce initially and some don't get a civilian job at all (the age of the military retiree is increasing--many people are now joining, not at 18, but at 28, 30 or later) that "deferred compensation" (and that IS what it is--it's the rest of the pay they earned but weren't paid at the outset) isn't serving as pin money--it's "paying the bills" for a lot of retirees.

[malthaussen]

6. Was going to make the same point about the language.

Ya beat me to it.

I am starting to think that journalists need to give up these "win/lose" ways of describing political conflicts.

As for the rest... nothing new there, eh?

-- Mal