Juliet Eilperin has a piece up at the Washington Post in which she writes:
"The White House systematically delayed enacting a series of rules
on the environment, worker safety and health care to prevent them from
becoming points of contention before the 2012 election, according to
documents and interviews with current and former administration
officials.
Some agency officials were instructed to hold off submitting
proposals to the White House for up to a year to ensure that they would
not be issued before voters went to the polls, the current and former
officials said.
And:
The Obama administration has repeatedly said that any delays until
after the eleciton were coincidental and that such decisions were made
without regard to politics. But seven current and former administration
officials told The Washington Post that the motives behind many of the
delays were clearly political, as Obama's top aides focused on
avoiding controversy before his reelection.
The first comment I have on this is that anyone surprised by these revelations is less jaded than I am.
The second comment is that anyone who followed the buildup to sequestration was treated to the phenomenon Eilperin writes about up close. Some even blogged about it.
Bryan McGrath
Sunday, December 15, 2024
Saturday, December 14, 2024
The Budget Deal and Military Retirement
News this week of the Ryan/Murray Budget agreement and its provision impacting military retirement has the veteran interest lobby taking to the ramparts to help fan the flames of misinformation. On a another level, my Facebook and Twitter feeds are laced with broadsides such as the one below, promulgated by people who spend most of their time excoriating the excesses of the welfare state, expropriating the language of the left in defend their opposition to the proposal. Note that I did not in any way state that military retirements are welfare. I am being particular about the language of the opposition.
What does the Ryan/Murray agreement do? "Under the Ryan-Murray deal, active-duty personnel and retired veterans younger than 62 would be forced into a new pension plan. Traditional veterans received a yearly cost-of-living adjustment on their pension equal to inflation. Under Ryan-Murray, however, veterans will now receive inflation, minus 1%. In other words, their yearly pension payment will be below the increase in the cost of living. When a veteran reaches the age of 62, the cost-of-living adjustment would again be equal to inflation."
Following the debate and the reaction in the broader media, one would be hard-pressed not to conclude that military retirement--like the one I earned (and yes, I believe I earned it)--is going to be CUT, as in, I would receive less money the month after the law passed than I did the month before. This is of course, not true. What the law will do (if passed) is cut the rate at which the retirement pay INCREASES. Formerly, only in Washington was such a thing referred to as a "cut"--it now appears that within the diaspora of the retiree community and the would-be retiree community, the language wielded by the left to protect spending in social programs is now applied to the rate at which military retirements increase. The irony of the language used is notable.
"Well, Mister Smarty Pants Consultant, if the pension doesn't keep up with the cost of living, the buying power of retirees will erode and their quality of living will decrease." And I would say to that, yes, I agree, it would. In the case of those military retirees between the ages of 38 and 62 with no other form of income, this would be the case. Presumably though, retirees in this group are capable of other work and if not, are more than likely drawing some kind of other disability related compensation. And at the age of 62, their retirement pay would then return to the previous inflation indexing scheme.
Ultimately, if this country is going to have any hope of getting its fiscal house in order, two things are going to have to happen. The economy is going to have to grow and "non-discretionary" federal spending is going to have to grow at a slower pace. Some believe additional revenues are required too. Military retirements are part of this non-discretionary category, which includes all manner of other programs, including healthcare and social programs whose increases are indexed in the laws that spawned them. At the end of the day, SOMEONE HAS TO GO FIRST. Someone's benefits are going to have to grow more slowly. Someone is going to have to sacrifice, to the extent that a cut in the increase in a benefit can be seen as a sacrifice.
Who understands sacrifice better than America's military retirees, each of whom invested at least twenty years of sweat equity in the country before they could receive a dime in retirement pay? Do we really have ANY expectation that other large interest groups in this country who represent those receiving inflation indexed federal benefits are going to come forward and say, "we know what has to be done, we'll go first?" The suggestion is ridiculous.
Some may say, "back that truck up...we've already sacrificed...it's time for someone else to do so". Who? Who would you look to? My answer to you would be "yes, they too. But you first. You know what is at stake, and you got up every morning for at least twenty years with no other job but to ensure that it continues."
America is like a giant, ever renewing start-up, which has been the source of much of its greatness and growth. It has lost some of that edge, and it is time for its investors, its stakeholders, its owners--as it were--to do what is necessary to get it back on track. Military retirees are those owners.
Bryan McGrath
 |
| Popular Internet Meme |
What does the Ryan/Murray agreement do? "Under the Ryan-Murray deal, active-duty personnel and retired veterans younger than 62 would be forced into a new pension plan. Traditional veterans received a yearly cost-of-living adjustment on their pension equal to inflation. Under Ryan-Murray, however, veterans will now receive inflation, minus 1%. In other words, their yearly pension payment will be below the increase in the cost of living. When a veteran reaches the age of 62, the cost-of-living adjustment would again be equal to inflation."
Following the debate and the reaction in the broader media, one would be hard-pressed not to conclude that military retirement--like the one I earned (and yes, I believe I earned it)--is going to be CUT, as in, I would receive less money the month after the law passed than I did the month before. This is of course, not true. What the law will do (if passed) is cut the rate at which the retirement pay INCREASES. Formerly, only in Washington was such a thing referred to as a "cut"--it now appears that within the diaspora of the retiree community and the would-be retiree community, the language wielded by the left to protect spending in social programs is now applied to the rate at which military retirements increase. The irony of the language used is notable.
"Well, Mister Smarty Pants Consultant, if the pension doesn't keep up with the cost of living, the buying power of retirees will erode and their quality of living will decrease." And I would say to that, yes, I agree, it would. In the case of those military retirees between the ages of 38 and 62 with no other form of income, this would be the case. Presumably though, retirees in this group are capable of other work and if not, are more than likely drawing some kind of other disability related compensation. And at the age of 62, their retirement pay would then return to the previous inflation indexing scheme.
Ultimately, if this country is going to have any hope of getting its fiscal house in order, two things are going to have to happen. The economy is going to have to grow and "non-discretionary" federal spending is going to have to grow at a slower pace. Some believe additional revenues are required too. Military retirements are part of this non-discretionary category, which includes all manner of other programs, including healthcare and social programs whose increases are indexed in the laws that spawned them. At the end of the day, SOMEONE HAS TO GO FIRST. Someone's benefits are going to have to grow more slowly. Someone is going to have to sacrifice, to the extent that a cut in the increase in a benefit can be seen as a sacrifice.
Who understands sacrifice better than America's military retirees, each of whom invested at least twenty years of sweat equity in the country before they could receive a dime in retirement pay? Do we really have ANY expectation that other large interest groups in this country who represent those receiving inflation indexed federal benefits are going to come forward and say, "we know what has to be done, we'll go first?" The suggestion is ridiculous.
Some may say, "back that truck up...we've already sacrificed...it's time for someone else to do so". Who? Who would you look to? My answer to you would be "yes, they too. But you first. You know what is at stake, and you got up every morning for at least twenty years with no other job but to ensure that it continues."
America is like a giant, ever renewing start-up, which has been the source of much of its greatness and growth. It has lost some of that edge, and it is time for its investors, its stakeholders, its owners--as it were--to do what is necessary to get it back on track. Military retirees are those owners.
Bryan McGrath
Friday, December 13, 2024
AEI/Heritage Project for the Common Defense (Navy) Weekly Read Board
The article by Abhijit Singh in The Diplomat is exceptional.
Wednesday, December 11, 2024
Conventional submarine update
While this is still early, but it looks like a new type of conventional submarine has been launched in WuChang shipyard. Some on the Chinese forum are calling this an improved Yuan, but I see this to be quite different with quite noticeable differences in the sail, the height/location of hump, the shape of bow and the hull in general. Here is a good shot of it:
Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Thoughts After The USNI Defense Forum Washington 2013
I spent the morning in company with a goodly number of those who Frank Hoffman refers to as "the prophets and disciples of Seapower" at the Naval Institute's 2013 Defense Forum Washington. Entitled "Shaping the Maritime Strategy and Navigating the Budget Gap Reality", the morning program included speeches and Q/A from HASC Seapower Subcommittee Chairman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), Virginia Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, the aforementioned Frank Hoffman, and New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte. It was good to see a number of friends and colleagues, and the hyped-up blizzard did not seem to hurt attendence a bit. The folks from the Naval Institute put on a good presentation in a stunning venue (the Newseum near the Navy Memorial).
But the prophets and disciples are restless. There was a discernible sense from the sidebar conversations, the break chatter, and the conversations conducted after the forum that we (if I can humbly count myself among them) aren't making a difference. That no one is listening. That those who on the Hill we most count on to "get it" sometimes don't really seem to get it. That we can conduct as many of these "choir practices" as we want, and we will make no headway. I had several conversations with people I admire greatly, some of whom are in positions today of great responsibility, who wondered aloud whether anyone cared about questions of great power conflict, a rising China, a declining U.S., and so on. Whether we as a people, have simply reached a point in which we no longer care about the things that made our country great, that we may be headed for a period of isolationism, that the present instantiation of our system of government is simply not up to the task.
One friend said something like, "I just don't think there is any utility to what we are doing" (in this case, advocating for clear-thinking on strategy, resource allocation, coherent fleet design, you know, the stuff we talk about here on this blog all the time). It was a pretty powerful moment, as this guy is not a Cassandra. And this is (pretty much) what I told him:
"Epictetus tells us (through Admiral Stockdale) that good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. Do good anyway. We need to do good anyway. We need to keep doing what we do, keep thinking about what we think about, keep raising these issues to the attention of those who need to hear it because someday, these ideas will be needed. I don't know how, and I don't know when. But they will. And we (this group of prophets and disciples) need to have good ideas and plans and strategies and fleet architectures standing at the ready and we need to have thought long and hard about how we would do the things we talk about doing and how we would fight the wars we think about fighting. Do good anyway."
I think that's what we need to do.
Bryan McGrath
But the prophets and disciples are restless. There was a discernible sense from the sidebar conversations, the break chatter, and the conversations conducted after the forum that we (if I can humbly count myself among them) aren't making a difference. That no one is listening. That those who on the Hill we most count on to "get it" sometimes don't really seem to get it. That we can conduct as many of these "choir practices" as we want, and we will make no headway. I had several conversations with people I admire greatly, some of whom are in positions today of great responsibility, who wondered aloud whether anyone cared about questions of great power conflict, a rising China, a declining U.S., and so on. Whether we as a people, have simply reached a point in which we no longer care about the things that made our country great, that we may be headed for a period of isolationism, that the present instantiation of our system of government is simply not up to the task.
One friend said something like, "I just don't think there is any utility to what we are doing" (in this case, advocating for clear-thinking on strategy, resource allocation, coherent fleet design, you know, the stuff we talk about here on this blog all the time). It was a pretty powerful moment, as this guy is not a Cassandra. And this is (pretty much) what I told him:
"Epictetus tells us (through Admiral Stockdale) that good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. Do good anyway. We need to do good anyway. We need to keep doing what we do, keep thinking about what we think about, keep raising these issues to the attention of those who need to hear it because someday, these ideas will be needed. I don't know how, and I don't know when. But they will. And we (this group of prophets and disciples) need to have good ideas and plans and strategies and fleet architectures standing at the ready and we need to have thought long and hard about how we would do the things we talk about doing and how we would fight the wars we think about fighting. Do good anyway."
I think that's what we need to do.
Bryan McGrath
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)