On the recordDecember 11, 2013
Let me point out what the retired vice admiral says. On behalf of the 380,000 members of the Military Officers Association of America, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposal within the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 which penalizes future uniformed service retirees and current retirees under the age of 62. Even though the budget deal would help ease the harmful effects of sequestration for 2 years for the Department of Defense, something we support, doing so on the backs of servicemembers who served our Nation for over 20 years is just shameful. I would interject at this point that I have to agree with that statement. The vice admiral goes on to say: Reducing working age retiree annual cost of living adjustment by 1 percent until they reach the age of 62 is simply a tax. Servicemembers who retire at the 20-year point would feel the full negative final effect of the proposal by reducing their retired pay by nearly 20 percent by the time they reach the age of 62. This is the pertinent part of the letter I am having printed in the Record, and my colleagues should hear me on this: For example, an Army sergeant first class, E-7 retiring this year with 20 years of service would see an average loss of over $3,700 per year by the time he or she reaches age 62, a cumulative loss of nearly $83,000.…





