What People Think
 |
 |
58% For, 42% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 1428, The National Guard and Reserve Retirement Modernization Act
You must be logged in to your WashingtonWatch.com account in order to edit this wiki page.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
Don't have an account? Register for your free account now!
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_HR_1428.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
James Clarkson
there they go again forgetting about the Viet Nam Vets and all the others that defended ther country why not reduce the retirement for all that served from 60 to 55 Be fair.
Msgt Kolata, Phillip J
What a slap in the face compared to there retirement plan. Why not make it age 50 with 20years of service like they have
Gulf War Vet
Why not include Vietnam, Grenada, and Gulf War I service? Those were contengiency operations as much as OEF and OIF.
JAMES
should lower retirement are to 50 years of age for 20 years of service in national guard and reserves it would be ashame to set retirement age base on war time service
G Storey
Agree that all who have actually served during a contingency (Vietnam, Gulf War etc.) should have their retirement reduced. By reducing it based on contingency time served you reward those who have actually served vice those who haven't and will not. During the current conflicts many reservists ( I know some personally) have refused to participate. Why reward them with a greater benefit? When the call came, they balked.
GM
Agreed serving a contingency does make one more eligble for lower retirement, but we that served in a non-deployable unit also need recognition for our devoted service. Age 60 is too long to wait for compensation. The average service member doesn't live much longer than 60.
AK
I think it should be lowered based on amount of active dury they have in addition of ANY war zone server in. Even 55 is too long to wait! Also I strongly feel that the medical benefits for retired should start immediately AFTER 20 years in served for ALL regardless of full or part time duty.
DT
Why not lower it for Vietnam vets?
They are all over 60 anyway and it would look like they are doing something!Thats all they want.
KB
I'm curious as to what percentage of Congress has actually served in the military active or reserve.
First off as GM says the average service member doesn't make much longer than 60. A lot of us have spent most of our adult working life in either active or reserve status or both. For instance I served about 9yrs active. With 1 1/2 yr active for OIFIII and the rest on National Guard status. Why should we have to wait to 60yrs. I believe we've earned it. Even if we weren't in combat, we gave up a lot of our time ie; weekends, summers etc, year after year. Not to mention State emergencies etc. No one asked us and we did these things glady. But for some of us, it might even be the only retirement we have. Think about it.
glenn/m/sgt ret.res
when are they going to vote on a bill which will lower the age to 55
Ronnie Miller
Something like this should have been done a long time ago, but especially now that the Guard and Reserve Soldiers are playing such a major role in Iraq and Afganistan. We only get paid for the days we are on duty, and should be able to collect a retirement based on those days after 20 years of service.
matt
I agree we should all get at least our retirement pay after 20yrs service I have 10yrs active duty not to mention 8yrs guard time 3 of which was spent activated. Why should I have to wait till I’m 60 to see my retirement?
kent
if guard service is base on war time service do the same for army,navy and air force
RC
Has John McCain ever voted to reduce the time a reservist or guardmans can receive their pension to support the troops?