The Defense Department won’t propose any retirement changes during its 2015 fiscal year budget request, Defense officials said Tuesday.
“We won’t propose anything on retirement benefits in 2015, we are waiting for and working with the commission,” said Christine Fox, the acting deputy Defense secretary at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, when asked about potential changes in the upcoming budget request.
The Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission will turn in a report by February 2015 that will recommend changes to the military’s compensation and retirement structure. The report was supposed to be turned in by May, but the National Defense Authorization Act passed last year extended the commission’s deadline.
Admiral James “Sandy” Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed with Fox, adding that any changes to retirement should include a “holistic” approach, that he said the commission is taking.
A provision in the budget agreement that cut military pensions for working-age retirees gained quick backlash by members of Congress in both parties. It included a 1 percent cut to cost-of-living adjustments over 10 years, saving the Defense Department approximately $6 billion.
Members of Congress restored the COLA funding for medically-retired military veterans under the omnibus bill, but that is less than a tenth of the total funding.
Fox said that no Defense Department officials were consulted on the decision to include the COLA cuts as part of the budget agreement. And that if the rest of the funding isn’t restored, the Defense Department would push for current service members and retirees to be grandfathered in so they would be exempt from the cuts. Any changes made by the commission next year would also include grandfathering.
Both Republican and Democratic senators on the committee predicted that the full funding would be restored quickly. Chairman Carl Levin said he expects the committee “will have the ability to act promptly” on a bill.
A proposal by Senators Mark Pryor and Kay Hagan has been referred to the Armed Services Committee. It does not include an offset. The Democratic duo’s bill is one of more than a dozen proposals that have been introduced to restore the funding. Many recommend paying for the funding with politically polarizing issues that will make the legislation practically impossible to pass.
Sen. Roger Wicker warned against delaying restoring the funds, adding that without quick action “it holds the potential that it will be like sequestration, and go into effect despite everyone’s protestations to the contrary.”
And Defense officials hesitated to dictate when Congress should restore the funding, with Winnefeld saying “the timing is completely up to the Congress,” as long as the 1-percent cut “is not taken off the table permanently for the commission.”
What We're Following See More »
In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."
Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."
Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.
Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."
Anyone looking forward to seeing some boldfaced names on the client list of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam," will have to wait a little longer. "The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not intervene to allow" the release of her phone records, "despite one of her former attorneys claiming the records are “very relevant” to the presidential election. Though he has repeatedly threatened to release the records if courts do not modify a 2007 restraining order, Montgomery Blair Sibley tells U.S. News he’s not quite sure what he now will do."